📰 Series Title[Rethinking Korea’s Power Structure]🧩“Can Procedure Be Ignored? — Reexamining the Legitimacy of the Impeachment Process”
✨ Lead Paragraph
Procedure is the backbone of democracy.
Even a just outcome, if not reached through a just process, can still harm democracy.
During the 2025 impeachment of President Yoon Suk-yeol,
numerous procedural controversies emerged—mostly invisible to the public eye.
Was the impeachment truly in accordance with the Constitution and legislative principles?
1. Skipping the Judiciary Committee — The First Crack in the Process
Normally, an impeachment motion goes through the Legislation and Judiciary Committee,
where the grounds and legal basis are refined.
But in this case, that step was skipped—
and the motion went straight to the plenary session.
Though some interpret this as permissible under parliamentary rules,
critics argue it neutralized internal legislative checks.
Political urgency overtook legal precision.
2. The Session Issue and the 'Double Jeopardy' Debate
The Constitution allows impeachment motions during active sessions,
interpreting that such action does not violate the principle of non-repetition (Il-sa-bu-jae-ri).
But the controversy lies in how this clause was applied.
In Yoon’s case, many of the charges were repeated from a previous session—
based on the same facts and similar grounds.
Can repackaging the same content under a different session number
truly qualify it as a “new motion”?
Such tactics raise concerns of political maneuvering,
rather than faithful application of constitutional principles.
3. Two Impeachments, One Presidency—One Justification?
On December 12, 2024, six opposition parties submitted a second impeachment motion.
The first attempt cited the First Lady’s scandals, appointment controversies, and diplomatic conflicts.
The second pivoted toward his foreign policy toward North Korea, China, and Russia,
and his alleged misuse of martial law powers.
Repeated impeachment attempts within the same term,
simply by switching core justifications—
does this align with constitutional spirit?
This isn’t merely a procedural debate—
it may represent an attempt to redefine constitutional order for political convenience.
4. Why Procedural Legitimacy Matters
Procedure is not just administrative formality.
It is the last safeguard the people have against the abuse of power.
Impeachment is the most extreme measure for removing a president under the name of law.
As such, its transparency, consistency, and constitutional grounding
are irreplaceable values that cannot be justified retroactively.
5. Some Might Say This Instead
“The result matters more than the process.”
“If there was wrongdoing, the method is secondary.”
But if this logic is accepted,
we risk entering an era where the Constitution is overridden
in the name of a so-called ‘just cause.’
The law is only just when it respects procedure.
And democracy only lives when it can rely on it.
🔚 Conclusion
Though the Constitutional Court ended the impeachment with a final verdict,
the process continues to raise questions among the people.
Can justice still be called justice—
when its form collapses?
We cannot ignore that question.
What does it mean when a nation's highest court speaks with one voice?
South Korea's 8-0 ruling to impeach its president wasn't just a legal decision—it was a message.
This article explores the symbolism, the silence, and the questions we must now face.
https://yedonews0083.tistory.com/12