Postponing a decision, court says failure of acting president to comply with its ruling would violate Constitution, law
The Constitutional Court of Korea on Monday postponed a ruling on whether acting President Choi Sang-mok violated the Constitution or infringed on the National Assembly's authority by not appointing Ma Eun-hyeok as a Constitutional Court justice. The delay in its ruling will maintain the court's current eight-member structure as it proceeds with the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol.
The court announced its decision to postpone a ruling on acting President Choi just hours before it was scheduled to deliver a verdict at 2 p.m. The case against Choi was filed by National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik on Jan. 3 on behalf of the Assembly. Woo argues that Choi’s refusal to appoint the nominated justice was arbitrary and violated the National Assembly’s authority to participate in forming the Constitutional Court and selecting its justices. Under the Constitutional Court Act, three of the nine Constitutional Court justices are nominated by the National Assembly.
The court said the justices decided to open a hearing on the case on Feb. 10, without elaborating on when it plans to announce a ruling.
The court's postponement of its decision came three days after Choi's legal representatives submitted a request for additional court sessions to continue looking into whether he was obligated to appoint the justice and whether his refusal infringed on the Assembly's right to select court justices. They also submitted a supplementary document claiming that Woo's filing of the constitutional complaint without prior approval from the Assembly was unlawful.
The central issue in the case is whether Choi's veto of the National Assembly's justice nominee, Ma Eun-hyeok, constitutes a failure to fulfill a legal duty and, if so, whether it is unconstitutional.
On Dec. 31, Choi declined to appoint Ma, one of the two main opposition party-recommended nominees, to fill the remaining court justice position on the nine-member bench.
He cited “the need for confirmation of bipartisan agreement” as a reason and appointed one ruling party-recommended candidate, Cho Han-chang, and one opposition-recommended candidate, Chung Kye-sun, while declining to appoint Ma.
During the court proceeding held on Jan. 22, Choi’s legal representatives argued that at the time of Ma’s nomination, discussions between the ruling and opposition parties had not progressed properly, partly due to unresolved issues surrounding the appointment of a Constitutional Court chief justice.
If the court sides with Woo and orders Choi to appoint Ma, the court will return to a full nine-member composition for the first time in four months.
On the other hand, if the court dismisses the petition, it will continue to operate with its current eight-member structure, which could impact key rulings, including the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol.
The ruling People Power Party is strongly opposed to Ma taking a seat at the court due to his progressive background.
Ma, nominated by the opposition Democratic Party, is known to have affiliations with progressive organizations.
PPP lawmakers have raised concerns about individuals from these groups holding key positions on the Constitutional Court, arguing that such appointments could shift the court’s ideological balance and influence rulings on critical matters, including President Yoon’s impeachment trial.
Currently, five of the eight justices in the court are considered to lean toward the opposition party. Experts say Ma’s appointment could influence impeachment-related decisions, as his inclusion would likely strengthen the opposition’s influence within the court.
When the court has eight justices, as it does currently, a minimum of six votes is required to uphold an impeachment. This means that if three justices vote against it, the six-vote threshold would not be met and the impeachment would be dismissed. In contrast, under a nine-member system, six votes are enough to uphold an impeachment, even if three justices dissent.
Earlier in the day, the court’s press officer, Cheon Jae-hyun, stated that if Choi fails to comply with the court’s decision on Ma Eun-hyeok’s appointment as a Constitutional Court justice, it would constitute “a violation of the Constitution and the law.”
“The Constitutional Court’s decision does not have the force of mandatory enforcement, but that does not mean the decision can be disregarded,” she told reporters.
Separately, the court postponed a ruling on a constitutional petition filed on Dec. 28 by attorney Kim Jeong-hwan. Kim argued that the disputes involving the appointment powers of both acting President Choi and his predecessor, former acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, violated his right to a fair trial in another constitutional case in which he is a petitioner.
ddd@heraldcorp.com
