The Constitutional Court dismissed Han Deok-soo's impeachment, giving up legal status, saying, "There is no basis for obstruction of special prosecution."
The Constitutional Court dismissed Han Deok-soo's impeachment, saying, "The special prosecution delay tactic" was "groundless and not obstruction," and thus did not violate the law, giving up legal status.
In the case of Marbury v. Madison 225 years ago, U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall stated in his statement, "It is the domain and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is," revealing the structure of the rule of law that stood against the monarchy.
The Constitutional Court's impeachment dismissal was dismissed by five justices stating, "The delay in the permanent special prosecution is not grounds for obstruction."
The Constitutional Court ruled, in accordance with the Constitution, that "the executive branch's unique strategy of packaging the permanent special prosecution law as not obstruction by delay is absolutely superior."
Justice Jeong Gye-seon, who cited the impeachment, gave a minority opinion in favor of impeachment, citing the reason for the enactment of the Special Prosecutor Act, which was to “immediately appoint a special prosecutor when an investigation target case occurs to ensure the most fair and efficient investigation possible.”
He stated, “As the Prime Minister acting on behalf of the President, he has a duty to minimize unnecessary controversy and quickly resolve national confusion in the event of the President’s suspension from duty. However, due to the above-mentioned violations of the Constitution and laws, he has instead amplified the controversy and aggravated the confusion, and has created a constitutional crisis that prevents the Constitutional Court from properly performing its normal role and function. The degree of the violation is so serious that it can justify impeachment.”
The Special Prosecutor Act is a legal act that counters the most powerful presidential veto of bills, and is a system that entrusts the role of investigation and prosecution to a third party, such as an independent person from the executive branch, rather than the prosecution, which has the monopoly on indictment, in response to the veto right (Article 53) of the Constitution that allows the president to raise objections to bills transferred from the National Assembly and send them back to the National Assembly for reconsideration, as the ‘perpetrator of power’.
The Permanent Special Prosecutor Act is a seven-member committee in which the Vice Minister of Justice, the Vice Minister of the Court Administration, and the President of the Korean Bar Association each recommend one person, and the remaining four are recommended by the ruling and opposition parties in the National Assembly. If two of the recommended candidates are submitted to the president, the president must appoint one of them.
If the president refuses to appoint a permanent special prosecutor, the National Assembly can consider impeachment proceedings, judging it as dereliction of duty, and here, the ‘veto’ and other ‘delaying strategies’ are granted to the executive branch. Special prosecutors are granted the right to investigate and prosecute cases where the prosecution cannot conduct its own investigation, such as cases involving high-ranking power corruption or illegal activities, or cases involving investigative agencies, so the special prosecutor has a constitutional legal status equivalent to the president's veto, and timeliness is included in the legal status.
In the case of Marine Corps Private First Class Chae Su-geun, who went missing after being swept away by a torrential downpour while searching for missing persons at a flood site in Yecheon, Gyeongbuk on July 19, 2023, and was found dead 14 hours later, suspicions of external pressure were raised after the investigation.
The 'Private First Class Chae Special Prosecutor's Act' passed the National Assembly on May 2, 2024, but was automatically scrapped in the 21st National Assembly due to the president's veto and rejection on re-voting. In response, the Democratic Party and other opposition parties re-proposed the 'Private First Class Chae Special Prosecutor's Act' as the party's first platform at the opening of the 22nd National Assembly, but it was also rejected again on July 25, 2024 due to the president's veto and rejection on re-voting.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the acting president's case against Prime Minister Han was "groundless" because it considered that "delay" was different from "obstruction," and that the "evidence" required for "obstruction" was not sufficient. U.S. Judge J. Michael Luttig wrote in a New York Times op-ed that Trump’s “war” with the federal judiciary “will only push our country deeper into a constitutional crisis,” adding that the Supreme Court would “assert its undisputed constitutional authority to ‘say what the law is,’ and if the nation’s highest court were to rebuke the federal courts in the war Trump has been hoping to wage, it would cripple his presidency and tarnish his legacy.”
The former federal circuit judge wrote that Chief Justice Marshall’s assertion that the courts have a duty to say what the law is could be the final word. “For years, Trump has viciously attacked judges and threatened their safety, called for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against his administration, and issued flagrantly unconstitutional orders targeting law firms and attorneys who represent clients he views as his enemies.”
Judge Ruttig said Trump “has vowed to weaponize the Department of Justice against his political opponents and has brazenly ignored the judicial orders he is constitutionally obligated to follow and enforce.” He “has declared war on the federal judiciary, the legal profession, and the rule of law in the United States, and has created a constitutional crisis with a shocking frontal assault on the third branch of government and the American judicial system.”
Ruttig said that if the president “exceeds his authority in his argument with Judge Boasberg, who called for impeachment because of his dissatisfaction with the ruling, the Supreme Court will step in and assert its undisputed constitutional authority to ‘say what the law is,’” and that “if the highest court in the United States were to reprimand the federal courts of the United States in Trump’s desired war on the judiciary, Trump’s presidency would be crippled and his legacy tarnished,” quoting former Chief Justice John Marshall’s phrase that “it is the courts’ duty to say what the law is.” President Trump called on the impeachment of Judge James E. Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on Tuesday after he ordered a halt to the deportation of more than 200 Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador for alleged gang membership.
Trump called Judge Boasberg a “radical left-wing lunatic judge, a troublemaker, a demagogue.” In his “stop deportation” ruling, Boasberg said the court must first determine whether the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was right to be invoked to deport Venezuelans without a hearing.
The judge’s application was called due process, and Judge Luttig said it “is guaranteed by the Constitution that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The tectonic plate of the constitutional order was criticized by US Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. in an unusual letter regarding Trump's remarks on 'impeaching judges', saying, "For over two centuries, impeachment has proven to be an inappropriate response to disagreement over the decisions of the judiciary."
The Constitutional Court of Korea acknowledged the 'delay' of Acting Special Prosecutor Han Duck-soo, completely excluding the 'constitutional rights of victims' and ruling that 'there is no ground for obstruction and therefore no violation.'
The US judge viewed 'deportation decisions without court hearings even if the law is enacted' as 'deprivation of constitutional rights' and a violation, and the Supreme Court supported this.
The approach of the American judge was that the “victim is a national immigrant,” the head of the executive branch is a “perpetrator with enormous authority,” and in terms of legal theory, a “person capable of lying,” so “granting the victim the right to make a statement” is a constitutional right, while the Constitutional Court of Korea intentionally downgraded and dismissed Acting President Han Duck-soo’s status as a “victim” in the impeachment trial.
The delay in the execution of the law by the executive branch is an obstruction of the law, and the ‘press release’ in which the executive branch monopolizes media publicity usually involves ‘lies’, and the American Fair Reporting (FAIR) standard places more weight on ‘accuracy’ than ‘fairness’.
It is subject to surveillance.
In the separation of powers, the 'delay' of the executive branch, the administration, applies to both policy and strategy, and this officially corresponds to the policy of 'obstructing the rights of multiple ministries'.
Article 64, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution stipulates that the President “has the responsibility to protect the continuity of the state and the Constitution” and that “the executive power belongs to the government headed by the President”, and thus the “responsibility for continuity” shows a violation of the constitutional duty regarding the “delay in special prosecution” of the “executive power.”
The Lee Jae-myung regime has lost the value of impeachment by damaging the “status of the law” by sending a large number of lawyers in charge of the trial of the Seongnam mayor case to the National Assembly and “paying priority” for “success fees.”