Decoding ruling: Why court upheld Yoon's impeachment

Then-President Yoon Suk Yeol covers his face during a press conference at the presidential office in Seoul, Nov. 7, 2024. Korea Times photo by Wang Tae-seog

The Constitutional Court’s historic decision Friday to remove President Yoon Suk Yeol from office was based on several key factors: his motives and the way he declared martial law on Dec. 3 last year, as well as his actions during his short-lived martial law imposition — all of which were either unconstitutional or lacked legal grounds.

In essence, the court rejected Yoon’s claims that the imposition of martial law was merely a warning to his political opponents, that it was within his presidential authority and that it followed a legitimate Cabinet process.

In a unanimous ruling delivered at 11 a.m., the eight-member panel upheld the impeachment motion against Yoon. The much-awaited ruling came 111 days after the National Assembly passed the impeachment motion and 123 days after Yoon declared martial law.

Graphic design by Bae So-young

1. Martial law unjustified

The court dismissed Yoon’s justification that imposing military rule was necessary to counter what he called a governance paralysis caused by opposition-led legislation and the impeachment of high-ranking officials.

The justices ruled that, at the time martial law was declared, the controversial bills had not yet taken effect.

“The bills that the respondent claimed were unilaterally passed by the opposition parties and posed problems had not taken effect at the time of the martial law declaration, as the respondent had either requested reconsideration or withheld their enactment,” acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae said in the televised ruling.

“Therefore, the National Assembly’s exercise of its powers — such as impeachment motions, legislation, and budget deliberation — did not create an immediate crisis at the time martial law was declared.”

Even if the Assembly’s actions were problematic for the president, the judges ruled that such issues should have been addressed through constitutional procedures, not emergency military measures that lacked legal justification.

2. Unlawful troop deployment

On the night martial law was declared, hundreds of troops, including special operations forces, were deployed to the Assembly. Police blocked the entrance, forcing some lawmakers to climb over walls to enter the building. Yoon also ordered military officials to forcibly remove lawmakers from the Chamber to prevent them from voting to lift martial law. The court ruled that these actions were unconstitutional.

“The Constitution and the Martial Law Act require that a state of emergency be declared only when there is a military necessity or a need to maintain public order and safety,” the court stated.

The ruling emphasized that using military force to obstruct the legislative process was unconstitutional, as it violated a constitutional provision granting the Assembly authority to request the lifting of martial law. It also infringed upon lawmakers’ rights to deliberation, voting and parliamentary immunity.

Additionally, the military deployment was problematic as it infringed upon the military’s political neutrality.

"The respondent deployed military forces for political purposes, thereby placing soldiers, who have served the nation under the mission of safeguarding national security and defending the homeland, in direct confrontation with ordinary people," Moon said.

Martial law troops take a photo of the National Election Commission's servers on Dec. 3 at the election watchdog's office in Gwacheon City, Gyeonggi Province. Courtesy of National Assembly's Interior and Safety Committee

3. Undermining National Election Commission

The court also rejected Yoon’s argument that his declaration of martial law was necessary due to alleged election fraud and a lack of cooperation from the National Election Commission (NEC) in investigating the matter. Under the emergency military rule, dozens of soldiers were deployed to NEC offices under Yoon's orders to look into the election watchdog's servers.

“The respondent claims martial law was declared to resolve suspicions of election fraud. However, the mere existence of such suspicions does not constitute a real and serious crisis,” the court stated.

Regarding the martial law troop's presence at the NEC offices, the judges ruled that it amounted to “an unauthorized search and seizure without a warrant," which violates the principle of warrant-based procedures and infringes on the independence of the election watchdog.

The court noted that speculations on election integrity should have been addressed through political, and judicial means — not through the deployment of military forces.

People supporting the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol react to the Constitutional Court's decision to remove him from office, Friday. Korea Times photo by Choi Won-suk

4. No formal Cabinet meeting

The court also found that Yoon violated procedural requirements by failing to convene a formal Cabinet meeting before declaring martial law, which is a key legal step required by the Constitution. Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and several ministers had testified that Yoon made the decision unilaterally after holding a brief meeting, without proper consultation.

“It is acknowledged that just before proclaiming martial law, the respondent briefly explained the purpose to the prime minister and nine ministers,” the court said.

“However, he did not provide details on key matters such as the appointment of the martial law commander, nor did he allow other members to express their opinions. Given these factors, it is difficult to conclude that proper deliberation took place.”

Constitutional Court acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae delivers a final ruling to uphold President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment at the court in Jongno District, Seoul, Friday. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul

Based on these violations, the court came to the conclusion that Yoon had committed serious constitutional violations deserving impeachment, stating that he “abandoned his duty to uphold the Constitution and gravely betrayed the trust of the sovereign citizens of Korea.”

The landmark ruling followed two preliminary hearings and 11 full sessions, with the final hearing held on Feb. 25. Yoon attended eight of these hearings and delivered a 70-minute defense statement during the final session.

With this decision, Yoon’s presidency, which began in May 2022, has been immediately cut short. This marks the second consecutive impeachment of a conservative president after former President Park Geun-hye was removed from office in March 2017 over a corruption scandal.