Constitutional revision drive stalls as PPP boycotts Assembly vote

Seats of the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) lawmakers remain empty during a plenary session of the National Assembly, Thursday, after a constitutional amendment bill was introduced. The PPP boycotted the session, arguing that the amendment proposal, introduced ahead of the June 3 local elections, is politically motivated. Yonhap

A constitutional revision aimed at tightening conditions for declaring martial law fell through Thursday after the conservative People Power Party (PPP) boycotted a parliamentary vote, claiming the amendment bill was politically motivated.

The National Assembly on Thursday voted on a constitutional amendment package for the first time in 39 years, with a plan to hold a national referendum for the revision alongside the June 3 local elections.

The proposed amendment, jointly introduced by six parties excluding the PPP, included provisions requiring parliamentary approval for a presidential declaration of martial law and strengthening the Assembly’s authority to lift martial law.

The amendment also added references to the Busan-Masan Democratic Uprising of 1979 and the May 18 Gwangju Democratic Uprising of 1980 to the Constitution’s preamble.

The revision package also included calls for balanced regional development.

The bill's passage required approval by more than 191 sitting lawmakers, or two-thirds of all 286. However, the PPP, which holds 107 seats, did not participate in the voting, effectively preventing the bill from securing 191 votes. The PPP denounced the proposal as a rushed and politically motivated revision tied to the upcoming local elections.

The amendment was drafted in the aftermath of former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s controversial martial law declaration of December 2024, with supporters arguing that stronger constitutional safeguards are needed to prevent abuses of executive power.

National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik made a last-minute appeal to PPP lawmakers to participate in the vote, saying the core of the amendment was to “substantially strengthen the National Assembly’s authority to control emergency martial law.”

Han Byung-do, floor leader of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, delivers a proposal speech on a constitutional amendment bill during a plenary session of the National Assembly, Thursday. Yonhap

After formally introducing the amendment bill, Woo described the vote as “a historic starting point” for the nation's first constitutional revision since 1987. He delayed the counting process for about 30 minutes after voting ended while waiting for PPP lawmakers to join the session.

“Through the Dec. 3 martial law crisis, we confirmed the gaps in the Constitution,” Woo said. “This amendment is about fulfilling the National Assembly’s historic responsibility to establish constitutional safeguards so that such a tragedy never happens again.”

Woo also criticized the PPP boycott, saying it was “deeply regrettable” that one side of the Assembly chamber remained empty during the vote. “Refusing even to enter the plenary chamber and participate in the vote is something the public will not find acceptable,” he said.

Han Byung-do, floor leader of the ruling Democratic Party of Korea (DPK), rejected accusations that the amendment was election-driven.

“How can adding balanced regional development to the Constitution be election-related?” Han asked. “Giving the National Assembly greater authority to control illegal martial law is, in fact, a way to prevent dictatorship.”

During the plenary session, Han also said the amendment was necessary to ensure that “unconstitutional and illegal martial law can never again even be imagined.”

He argued that the revision would create “an institutional barrier for democracy through the Constitution.”

PPP floor leader Song Eon-seog said his party was not opposed to a constitutional revision itself, but argued the current proposal was incomplete and being pushed through too quickly.

“Trying to revise the Constitution with only a few selectively agreed-upon provisions would amount to a patchwork amendment,” Song said.

“Holding a constitutional referendum on a schedule tailored to the election amounts to a rushed revision.”

In a statement issued in the name of all PPP lawmakers before the vote, the party argued that the constitutional revision should not be used as a “strategic election tool” and called for broader bipartisan discussions after the second half of the 22nd National Assembly begins.

The PPP proposed forming a special parliamentary committee to discuss a more comprehensive constitutional revision package, including changes to the power structure of government, rather than what it described as a “rushed” and “piecemeal” amendment tied to local election timing.

The DPK has said it may call for another plenary session Friday after Thursday’s vote fell apart, as the amendment would have to clear the Assembly by Sunday to allow a national referendum to be held alongside the June 3 local elections.