.png)
[This article summarizes the presentations made by the speakers at the "Research Seminar on the Abuse and Reform of the Impeachment System" held at the National Assembly Hall on October 9, 2024. The seminar focused on how the impeachment system has been misused in South Korea and discussed potential reforms. This article is divided into three parts, and Part 1 is based on the presentation by Attorney Do Tae-woo, who criticized the political abuse of impeachment in South Korea and proposed specific reforms to address this issue.]
The Misuse of Impeachment in South Korea
Impeachment in South Korea is intended as a constitutional remedy, designed to protect the integrity of the nation’s legal order and rectify unlawful actions by public officials. However, in recent years, this system has increasingly been used as a political tool, leading South Korea to be dubbed the "Impeachment Republic." According to Attorney Do Tae-woo, since the inauguration of President Yoon Suk-yeol in 2022, 17 impeachment motions have been introduced in just two years, accounting for nearly 44.9% of all impeachment motions in the nation's history. This frequent use of impeachment has turned it into a political weapon, with the consequences of this misuse being borne by the public.
The abuse of impeachment stems from how some members of the National Assembly use their constitutional right to initiate impeachment motions for political gain—either to strengthen their own political position or weaken their political opponents. According to Article 65 of the Constitution and Article 134 of the National Assembly Act, the National Assembly can propose impeachment when a public official is found to have violated the law. If the motion is passed, the Constitutional Court will make a final ruling on the impeachment. The problem arises when the power to propose impeachment is used excessively and for political purposes, distorting the system's original intent. In recent years, it has become common for impeachment motions to be pushed through the National Assembly without sufficient prior investigation or debate.
For example, shortly after the appointment of the Chairman of the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) in 2022, an impeachment motion was proposed just a day after the appointment, and the motion was put to a vote in the National Assembly less than 24 hours later. This rushed impeachment, driven by political interests, was processed without adequate investigation or review, raising concerns about its legal legitimacy and fairness. Such hasty impeachment processes contribute to political fatigue and distrust among the public.
Comparison with the U.S. Impeachment Process
Attorney Do Tae-woo notes that South Korea's impeachment process vastly differs from that of more established democracies like the United States. In the U.S., when an impeachment motion is introduced, it is first thoroughly examined by the House Judiciary Committee. Following this, hearings are held before the matter is brought to a vote in the full House. This multi-step process is designed to prevent impeachment from being abused as a purely political tool. In contrast, in South Korea, once an impeachment motion is proposed, it is often moved directly to a vote in the National Assembly without any significant investigation or hearings. This lack of procedural rigor increases the risk of public officials being prematurely removed from office without sufficient evidence or due process, thus undermining the system's legitimacy.
Moreover, the South Korean Constitution grants the National Assembly the power to propose impeachment but does not include a corresponding mechanism for the executive branch to check this power. This creates a structural imbalance, as there is no way for the executive branch to counter the National Assembly’s misuse of impeachment powers effectively. In contrast, in countries like the United Kingdom, the prime minister has the authority to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections if Parliament abuses its impeachment powers. South Korea could benefit from introducing similar checks and balances to prevent the National Assembly from overstepping its authority.
The Immediate Suspension of Duties and Its Consequences
Another major issue with South Korea’s impeachment system is that once an impeachment motion is proposed, the official in question is immediately suspended from office. This suspension remains in effect until the Constitutional Court delivers a final judgment. While this is intended to prevent further abuse of power, it often leads to administrative disruption and policy setbacks. For example, in the case of the KCC chairman's impeachment in 2023, the official was suspended from office immediately after the motion was introduced, leading to a temporary halt in broadcast policy implementation and creating confusion.
This immediate suspension of duties can disrupt government operations and negatively affect the daily lives of citizens. It is an issue that must be addressed, as it undermines the efficiency of public administration and creates unnecessary chaos in the policy process.
The Case of President Park Geun-hye’s Impeachment
The problems with South Korea's impeachment system were glaringly exposed during the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye. Her impeachment led to intense political debates and deep divisions within the country, while the Constitutional Court’s ruling was criticized for a lack of thorough investigation and analysis of the facts. The court was forced to reach a conclusion within 180 days, which did not allow for a comprehensive review of the case. This expedited process compromised the procedural legitimacy of the impeachment. The Park Geun-hye impeachment has since become a key example that highlights the need for reform in the country's impeachment process.
Proposed Reforms to the Impeachment System
Attorney Do Tae-woo argues that the current impeachment process in South Korea requires significant reform. The following are key proposals for improving the system:
1. Mandatory Investigation by the Judiciary Committee: Before an impeachment motion is proposed, it should undergo thorough investigation by the National Assembly's Judiciary Committee. At present, impeachment motions are often introduced directly to the plenary session without any investigation, increasing the risk of misuse for political purposes. A pre-vote investigation would ensure that the grounds for impeachment are clear and substantiated before the process moves forward.
2. Introducing Executive Oversight on Impeachment Motions: The government should have the ability to dissolve the National Assembly and call for new elections if the Assembly abuses its power to propose impeachment motions. This measure would provide a necessary check on the National Assembly’s power, ensuring that it does not misuse impeachment as a political tool. Introducing such a system would better balance the separation of powers between the legislature and the executive.
3. Improving the Constitutional Court’s Impeachment Procedure: The Constitutional Court’s impeachment review process must be reformed to allow for a more thorough investigation and a longer decision-making period. In particularly significant cases, such as presidential impeachments, a more extended period should be allowed for examination and hearings, ensuring that the Court can make a well-informed and impartial decision. Additionally, efforts should be made to minimize political pressure on the Constitutional Court during such cases to preserve its judicial independence.
The country's impeachment system must be reformed to avoid further damage to South Korea’s democracy and shed the negative label of being the "Impeachment Republic. " Impeachment should remain a last resort for punishing officials who have violated the Constitution and laws, not a political weapon. The political misuse of impeachment undermines public trust, destabilizes the political environment, and harms the nation’s governance.
To prevent further abuse, the National Assembly must use the impeachment power more judiciously, ensuring that it functions as a legitimate tool for upholding the rule of law. Moreover, the political community must adhere to the true purpose of impeachment, ensuring that it is used only in cases of serious constitutional violations and not for political advantage. A reformed impeachment process will contribute to the maturation of South Korea’s democracy, fostering a political system that is more transparent, fair, and accountable to its citizens.
Comments