Lee Jae-myung's 'Impeachment of the Prime Minister', Foreign News 'Impeachment of the Acting President' Gap
Lee Jae-myung, the leader of the Democratic Party, announced it as 'Impeachment of the Prime Minister', but foreign news reported it as 'Impeachment of the Acting President', so the gap is large.
On the 27th, in a statement, Lee stated, "The exchange rate fluctuated due to the declaration of martial law, and skyrocketed due to the rejection of the impeachment, Yoon Seok-yeol's additional statement, and Han Duck-soo's refusal to appoint him as a Constitutional Court justice," and "Today, our Democratic Party impeaches Prime Minister Han Duck-soo in accordance with the people's order," and clearly stated it as 'Impeachment of the Prime Minister'.
Lee showed duplicity by stating the core reason for impeachment as 'violation of the Constitution by the Acting President' and presenting 'Han Duck-soo's refusal to appoint him as a Constitutional Court justice' as the core basis.
The New York Times wrote 'Impeachment of the Acting President' as the title of the international news that day, <Korean National Assembly Members Impeach Acting President Due to Deepening Crisis>. Reuters titled it “South Korea’s Acting President Han Duck-soo, President Yoon Seok-youl’s Impeachment Trial” and AP also wrote “South Korea’s Opposition-controlled National Assembly Votes to Impeach Acting President Han Duck-soo” as “Impeachment of Acting President.”
Reuters reported, “South Korea’s National Assembly impeached Acting President Han Duck-soo last Friday, throwing the country into political turmoil less than two weeks after suspending President Yoon Seok-youl’s brief martial law declaration,” and “The impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who was acting president after President Yoon Seok-youl was impeached on December 14 for declaring martial law on December 3, has pushed South Korea’s once vibrant democratic success story into uncharted territory.”
Voice of America (VOA), under the jurisdiction of the U.S. State Department, reported, “South Korea Passes First Impeachment of Acting President in Constitutional History… <Concerns over increasing political instability> The article reported, “The impeachment motion against Acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo of South Korea has been passed by the National Assembly.”
The Constitution of South Korea stipulates that the National Assembly’s exercise of power over the Prime Minister is given priority in Article 63 of the ‘dismissal resolution’, and the ‘impeachment resolution’ of Article 65 of the Constitution, which the Democratic Party first promoted, is a power structure that transfers the final ruling authority to the Constitutional Court and relies on ‘immediate suspension of duty’, so it is superior to the judiciary.
The principle of democracy by the restoration of the rights of the National Assembly gives priority to the exercise of the National Assembly’s rights through the ‘dismissal resolution’, and it seems that the subsequent additional ‘impeachment’ will be advantageous in the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the ‘impeachment of the acting president.’
Representative Lee’s emergency statement on the ‘impeachment of the prime minister’ stated, “‘acting power’ has transformed into ‘acting insurrection’”, but did not mention ‘acting’ at all, and instead stated it as ‘impeachment of the prime minister.’ The representative then announced the ‘Prime Minister Impeachment Statement’ saying, “Suppressing the rebellion is the stability of the state and the restoration of the democratic republic” and “Suppressing the rebellion is the way to overcome the economic crisis and restore the people’s livelihood.”
At the plenary session of the National Assembly, Speaker Woo Won-shik stated on the 28th, “This agenda is an impeachment motion against Prime Minister Han Deok-soo,” and “Therefore, I would like to inform you that it will be decided by a majority vote of the members present in accordance with Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution.” Speaker Woo stated, “There are some opinions on the quorum for this agenda, but the National Assembly’s impeachment resolution requires removal from office, and the subject of this agenda is the Prime Minister, who exercises the authority of the President in accordance with the Constitution.”
He added, “The Constitution only stipulates a weighted quorum for the President. The Speaker has the authority to organize the National Assembly’s proceedings in accordance with Article 10 of the National Assembly Act, and I would like to inform you that the quorum for this agenda was determined by comprehensively reviewing the opinions of constitutional scholars and the National Assembly Research Service in order to proceed with the proceedings of this agenda,” and stated, “The Speaker’s judgment takes precedence.”
The People Power Party stated five major reasons for the violation of the National Assembly Act by National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik in the petition for a dispute over authority submitted to the Constitutional Court immediately after the ‘passing of the impeachment bill against Acting President Han Duck-soo.’ In the petition for a dispute over authority submitted by the People Power Party, it was stated that Speaker Woo unilaterally interpreted the law to set the quorum for passage at 151 seats, thereby violating the right of the People Power Party members to exercise their right to deliberate and vote to block the impeachment, and that this also violated the right of representation of the National Assembly members as representatives of the people.
The claims regarding the violation of the rights of the Speaker of the National Assembly include: △violation of the National Assembly members’ right to deliberate and vote, △unconstitutional and illegal acts by the Speaker of the National Assembly, △non-establishment of grounds for impeachment, △violation of the National Assembly members’ right to represent the National Assembly, and the need to prevent paralysis of state affairs. See <Han Deok-soo’s ‘dismissal’ of the People Power Party, which violates the constitutional sovereignty and ‘dissolution of a political party’, December 8, 2024>