Park’s last chance at Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court on Monday demanded President Park Geun-hye’s counsel team to inform by Wednesday whether the president will attend court hearing for her final argument in her impeachment trial. Acting Constitutional Court Chief Justice Lee Jeong-mi, who demanded President Park to make final argument on this Friday, replied to a request to delay the president’s court appearance to March 2 or 3, which her counsels made in the 14th hearing on Thursday last week, by saying that the Constitutional Court will consider the request only after checking the troubled president’s will to attend the hearing. Assuming the president will make court appearance, Justice Lee said, “It would be beneficial to proactively answer questions (from Constitutional Court justices and the group of lawmakers who took motion to impeach her).” Justice Lee thus made it clear that President Park’s unilateral statement, which was frequently conducted in her press conferences, will not be accepted, and that the court will make final ruling on the presidential impeachment before Lee’s retirement as Constitutional Court justice on March 13.

The Constitutional Court rejected both the demand by Park’s counsels to take additional witnesses and the request to seek investigation of evidence. The argument by the president’s counsels that the proceeding of the trail is partial and misguided can no longer be taken persuasive. The president was given several chances, but witnesses for the president failed to show up in court by citing various reasons, while some witnesses went into hiding. Since it is not desirable to have prolonged vacuum in state administration, people should respect the Constitutional Court’s plan and commitment.

The problem is that even if President Park appears at the Constitutional Court, yet stops short of answering questions and only states what she has to say, the Constitutional Court has no alternative measure to change her. Considering diverse circumstantial evidence, chances are high that President Park will avoid answering “uncomfortable questions.” Former U.S. President Bill Clinton made testimony in private through CCTV at the White House during the grand jury trial over the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Clinton also failed to attend his impeachment trial.

Unlike Clinton, Park has boycotted probes by not only public prosecutors but also by the independent counsel. If a president rejects all probes by the authorities in charge of investigation and indictment and unilaterally make her final argument, they will negatively affect her chance in the impeachment trial. One is widely expected to answer in questioning even as the nation’s president, once she chooses to appear at the Constitutional Court. The court should accept the president’s demand to postpone her hearing to the extent possible, but persuade the president to answer in questioning. If needed, the court could come up with a compromising measure such as her argument made in public and questioning done in private.

The independent counsel’s bid to grill the president has effectively gone up in smoke. The only chance for the president to make frank statement to give the full account on alleged manipulation of state affairs involving her confidante Choi Soon-sil, and make an apology to the public is her final argument at the Constitutional Court scheduled in several days. Before anything, the president should frankly testify the reason why she had more than 570 calls with Choi Soon-sil between April 18 and October 26 last year, and 127 calls for some 50 days even after Choi escaped Korea to Germany, which were announced recently by the independent counsel. President Park has the full responsibility to dispel the "theory of Choi’s planned return to Korea" and "prior conspiracy," which have been raised by her critics. She is also urged to give frank and detailed account on her whereabouts and activities on the day of the Sewol ferry’s tragic sinking in her capacity as the chief executive who is obliged to follow the Constitution and law.