Go to contents

Public’s deep trust in the Constitutional Court

Posted February. 11, 2017 07:06,   

Updated February. 11, 2017 07:16

한국어

Protesters participating in candlelight vigils supporting President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment held a press conference in front of the independent counsel’s office in Daechi-dong in Seoul’s Gangnam district at 3 p.m. on Friday, and were to join a rally in front of the Gwanghwamun Square on Saturday to stage two-day protest. In the course of its march on Friday, the protestors almost got into physical clash with protestors of the conservative group, who were staging a rally across the street from the Supreme Court in Seocho-dong. The main opposition Minjoo Party had stopped participating in candlelight vigils after the National Assembly approved the impeachment bill, but decided to join candlelight vigils from Saturday again, and instructed all of its lawmakers to take part. Some pro-Park Geun-hye lawmakers and presidential candidates of the ruling Saenuri Party are also set to participate in the conservative group’s rally with the Korean national flag Taegeukgi on Saturday.

It has become highly likely that the Constitutional Court will make ruling on the impeachment motion against President Park in early March. As the moment of judgment draws nearer, duel between people supporting impeachment and those against it will further intensify. The organizers of the candlelight vigils are planning the biggest ever rally on March 25, the fourth anniversary of President Park’s inauguration, while the conservative group also placed instruction to its metropolitan city and provincial chapters to mobilize all the people concerned on March 1 Independence Movement Day, escalating tension and fear over possible physical conflict.

All people including politicians are free to express their support of or objection to impeachment. However, such expression‎ should be possible only under the assumption that they will accept when the Constitutional Court issues a ruling. Moon Jae-in, a leading contender in approval rating in the presidential race, has never said that he will accept the Constitutional Court’s ruling. No one will follow the Constitutional Court’s rulings because they always like them. We follow them because we promise to follow in advance through the Constitution. A politician who does not follow the Constitutional Court’s ruling is not eligible to be the nation’s president. Both the people who participate in candlelight vigil rallies and those who take part in Taegeukgi rally by the conservative group should be ready to accept whichever ruling the Constitutional Court makes.

Korea is expected to face a grave crisis, and there are emerging signs of clash between different groups of people that go beyond those of divide in public opinions. The fate of this nation depends all the more on the Constitutional Court under such circumstance. The Constitutional Court, which came into being following Korea’s democratization in 1987, has built up huge public trust by generating unity among the public at every moment of fierce national conflict dispute its short history. After the retirement of its Chief Justice Park Han-cheol, the Constitutional Court is in the abnormality of eight-justice organization. Attorneys for the president have staged tactic to delay the trial process in a bid to have the court make ruling under a seven-justice system. But the Constitutional Court is facing the huge burden of the need to make ruling under an eight-justice structure if at all possible before March 13, when Justice Lee Jeong-mi will retire. Greek philosopher Socrates singled out as a justice’s virtues kindly listening, answering without omitting, and ruling fairly. It may sound like an incompatible demand but the court should issue a prompt yet fair ruling.

The public has strong belief that the Constitutional Court will overcome unprecedented pressure and help achieve unity among the Korean public once again. When then President Roh Moo-hyun was impeached in 2004, the Constitutional Court stated that “Whether to accept impeachment motion is dependent not just upon whether the president violated the Constitution or laws, but instead on whether the severity of violations are grave and betrays the public’s trust, and thus reached a situation so serious that it makes impossible for the president to manage state administration.” This constituted the first ever legal precedent. This case is a yardstick that should be referred to in the trial on President Park’s impeachment as well.

As for a historically important case such as presidential impeachment trial, justices in the Constitutional Court are asked to review and make judgment on the case in question, but individual justice is judged by his or judgment itself. In the impeachment trial of President Roh in 2004, the Constitutional Court was not obliged to reveal what opinions individual justices made. However, each and every justice in the court is required to publicly disclose his or her opinions in his or her own name. The justices are already under heavy pressure to check and confirm‎ facts and apply proper laws, and they also need the courage to overcome the cowardice of hiding themselves in the anonymity of ruling and make fair and equitable judgment. Making a ruling that is sincere in light of justice’s conscientiousness despite mounting pressure they face from within and outside is the way for the justices to make decision that the public can accept, and for which they can be honorable to history.