Judgment day for Yoon: Court to rule on impeachment at 11 am

An electronic display in front of the Constitutional Court in central Seoul's Jongno District, Thursday, shows the scheduled time for President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment ruling over his botched martial law declaration — 11 a.m., Friday. Yonhap

The Constitutional Court will hand down its ruling at 11 a.m. Friday in the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk Yeol — a case that could reshape the limits of presidential authority in the country’s constitutional democracy.

The ruling centers on five key allegations, all stemming from the night of Dec. 3 when Yoon declared martial law amid an escalating conflict with the opposition-controlled National Assembly.

The five allegations made by the Assembly in its impeachment motion against Yoon are: the declaration of martial law, whether its accompanying proclamation met necessary conditions, obstruction of parliamentary activity, an attempt to take control of the National Election Commission (NEC) and ordering troops to detain lawmakers and prevent them from passing a resolution to lift the martial law decree.

The court has spent more than 100 days closely examining whether Yoon committed any unconstitutional or unlawful acts in connection with the five points. If the justices determine that even one of the allegations constitutes a grave violation of the Constitution or the law, they are expected to rule in favor of impeachment.

This combination of photos show rallies by President Yoon Suk Yeol's opponents, left, and supporters in Seoul, Saturday. Yonhap

Fierce legal battle

In the courtroom, heated arguments unfolded between the Assembly, acting as the prosecution, and Yoon’s legal team over the five central charges.

The court closely examined the arguments and evidence presented by both sides, focusing on whether the Dec. 3 martial law declaration was necessitated by a “state of emergency” as defined by the Constitution, whether the declaration followed proper Cabinet procedures and the constitutionality of the following proclamation, which banned all political activity. In particular, a key point of contention was whether the domestic situation on Dec. 3 met the constitutional threshold for a national emergency.

The court also focused on whether Yoon had ordered troops to forcibly remove lawmakers from the Assembly to prevent them from holding a parliamentary vote to lift the martial law, whether he attempted to deploy military forces into the constitutionally protected election commission and whether he directed the arrest of specific lawmakers.

Procedural questions

Another key issue was whether the declaration of martial law followed proper legal procedures.

Under the Constitution, a declaration of martial law requires prior deliberation by the Cabinet. However, the Cabinet meeting took place just before Yoon's declaration, starting at 10:17 p.m. and ending just five minutes later. There were no formal announcements of the meeting’s opening or closing, no procedure for presenting the agenda, no minutes recorded and no signatures from Cabinet members collected.

In response, Yoon’s lawyers argued that “the minutes and signatures are supplementary matters that can be handled afterward for security reasons.”

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who attended the Cabinet meeting, testified that “there were procedural and substantive flaws.” Former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min also stated, “Those Cabinet members who were present likely believed a legitimate Cabinet meeting was taking place.”

Prime Minister Han Duck-soo testifies during a hearing of President Yoon Suk Yeol’s impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court in Jongno District, Seoul, Feb. 20. Yonhap

Unconstitutional vs. symbolic measure

The constitutionality of an accompanying proclamation was another major point of the battle. The decree stated that “all political activities, including those of the National Assembly, local councils, political parties, political organizations, rallies and protests, are all prohibited.” It also included provisions for media and publication censorship, a ban on labor strikes and penalties for medical students who failed to return to schools.

Although some civil liberties can be restricted under martial law, the Constitution does not allow for the suspension of parliamentary activity. The Assembly argued that the proclamation violated the Constitution by barring legislative activities without legal grounds. Yoon’s lawyers argued that the measure was never intended to be enforced and was instead a symbolic warning aimed at deterring what they described as extreme actions by the opposition.

However, the Assembly also argued that Yoon mobilized military forces to disable the Assembly when he declared martial law. Lt. Gen. Kwak Jong-geun, former commander of the Army Special Warfare Command, testified that Yoon told him, “The quorum hasn’t been met — break down the doors and drag the lawmakers out.” Col. Cho Seong-hyeon, the head of the first security group under the Capital Defense Command, also stated that he received orders to enter the main building and remove lawmakers.

Controversy over order

The court also closely examined whether Yoon attempted to disable the NEC by deploying military forces, and whether he ordered the arrest of political and judicial figures.

The Assembly argued that several prominent politicians were on the alleged arrest list, including main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) leader Rep. Lee Jae-myung, former ruling People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon, Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik, former Rebuilding Korea Party leader Cho Kuk and DPK floor leader Rep. Park Chan-dae.

While Yoon denied giving any orders to detain political figures, he did acknowledge sending troops to the NEC.

Among the most serious allegations is Yoon sending troops into the NEC — an independent constitutional body — without a warrant, in order to detain staff and seize digital records.

The Assembly argued that “even under martial law, exceptions to the warrant requirement cannot be applied without limits, and the election commission’s operations must remain protected.” In response, Yoon’s team argued that “the measure was unavoidable due to indications of election fraud and was intended solely to verify the facts.”

The presidential office in Yongsan District, Seoul, Tuesday / Yonhap

Willingness to uphold Constitution

As in past impeachment cases, the key criteria for judgment are the severity of the unconstitutional or unlawful actions and whether the president demonstrated a willingness to uphold the Constitution.

In the 2004 case of former President Roh Moo-hyun, the court acknowledged some legal violations but ultimately dismissed the motion, citing his commitment to constitutional principles. In contrast, former President Park Geun-hye was removed from office in 2017 after the court found not only serious breaches of law, but also a lack of intent to protect the constitutional order.

Throughout the trial, Yoon made multiple appearances before the court, vigorously defending the legitimacy of his martial law declaration. In contrast, the Assembly argued — through documentary evidence and witness testimonies — that the declaration amounted to an act of insurrection, lacking the constitutional grounds required for martial law.

With both sides sharply divided, the court is set to issue its ruling on Friday — 111 days after the case was filed on Dec. 14.

Whatever the verdict, the court’s decision will close a historic chapter in Yoon’s presidency. However, the deeper concern lies in the potential for political reactions of the decision. If either side refuses to accept the court’s judgment, the country could plunge into even greater political turmoil.