A heated debate is unfolding over the constitutional roles and responsibilities of South Korea’s acting President Han Duck-soo, who has assumed presidential duties following President Yoon Suk Yeol’s suspension on Dec 14.
At the heart of the controversy lies a critical question: Should Mr Han, who also serves as Prime Minister, be treated as a president or a prime minister when facing an impeachment vote?
The answer carries significant implications for the governance of the country, already suffering a power vacuum.
The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea claims it can impeach the acting president with a simple majority of 151 votes in the National Assembly. In the 300-member parliament, the Democratic Party holds 170 seats, meaning it would be able to impeach the acting president on its own.
The ruling bloc counterclaims that 200 votes are required to impeach Mr Han.
Describing the acting president as an “accomplice” to President Yoon’s martial law imposition on Dec 3, the Democratic Party on Dec 26 filed a motion to impeach Mr Han.
If the impeachment motion passes on Dec 27, Mr Han will have his duties as both the prime minister and acting president suspended, with Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Strategy and Finance Choi Sang-mok taking over both roles.
As the impeachment motion was reported to the opposition-controlled National Assembly’s main chamber at 2.07pm local time, Dec 26, the vote can technically start within 24 hours at the earliest.
However, as of press time, decisions over what time the impeachment trial would take place or how many votes are required for Mr Han’s impeachment were not immediately available.
Mr Han has served as the acting president since 7.24pm on Dec 14 following Mr Yoon’s suspension.
Two weeks on, the opposition party now points to Mr Han’s “delaying tactics”, referring to his dismissal on Dec 24 of the opposition’s demand that he approve special counsel bills targeting Mr Yoon and his wife Kim Keon Hee. The legal deadline for government deliberation was about a week away.
Under Article 65 of the Constitution, a motion to impeach high-ranking public officials such as prime ministers, ministers, court judges, justices or other Cabinet members requires a concurrent vote of a majority of all members of the National Assembly to pass.
However, the President is the exception, as a motion to impeach the president needs at least two-thirds of all members of parliament.
Based on its own interpretation, the opposition party argued Mr Han should be deemed a Prime Minister because Mr Han is not an elected public official. He was a Cabinet member who assumed his role with the approval of the head of state and parliament.
Democratic Party Chair Representative Lee Jae-myung told party lawmakers on Dec 24 that neither South Korean law nor the Constitution establishes the post of an acting president.
“Only a Cabinet member who is entrusted with the role of a president exists (by law),” Mr Lee said.
Mr Lee responded to the ruling People Power Party’s claim that Mr Han’s impeachment would require at least 200 votes, meaning its 108 lawmakers could shoot down the motion.
“There are people who make the bizarre claim that an acting president should be regarded as the same constitutional entity as the incumbent president, and both should therefore be punished under the same conditions if they violate the law, but this claim is merely designed to mislead the public,” Mr Lee added.
Mr Lee’s remarks came at a party meeting to determine whether to file an impeachment motion against Mr Han immediately on Dec 24. The 170 opposition lawmakers present were unanimously in favor of the move, but Floor Leader Representative Park Chan-dae said the party would hold off on the procedure.
Prosecutor-turned-lawmaker Representative Joo Jin-woo of the ruling party argued earlier on Dec 24 that the acting president’s executive power, not his legal status, determines the minimum voting threshold.
In theory, Mr Han is entrusted with Mr Yoon’s power to serve as commander-in-chief of the South Korean armed forces, represent the international persona of the state, issue executive orders in case of a crisis, appoint and dismiss public officials and grant amnesty.
“(Han) is tasked with important duties that can’t be discontinued such as the commander-in-chief, so his suspension from duty must require at least two-thirds of the votes from (all 300) parliament members,” Mr Joo said.
Representative Kweon Seong-dong, floor leader of the People Power Party, also said the main opposition’s position has been contradictory.
Mr Kweon invoked the Democratic Party’s move in July to impeach Mr Lee Sang-in, an acting chief of South Korea’s broadcast regulator Korea Communications Commission, on the premise that his role amounts to that of the impeached chief Lee Jin-sook.
This indicated that the Democratic Party then saw an acting chief of any government organisation as equivalent to its chief, contrary to the current stance that a Prime Minister cannot be equivalent to a President, Kweon said.
National Assembly Speaker Representative Woo Won-shik, who was elected as a Democratic Party lawmaker in April, said on Dec 24 he has the authority to determine the impeachment vote threshold, adding he would take into account the National Assembly Research Service’s interpretation that 151 votes is the minimum threshold for Mr Han’s impeachment.
Given that there are no precedents determining the legal status of the acting president, National Assembly Speaker Woo’s decision on the minimum threshold “would not be a binding one,” said Professor Chang Young-soo, professor of law specializing in the Constitution at Korea University.
What would be binding, he said, is a Constitutional Court ruling on the validity of Mr Han’s impeachment vote, as long as the ruling party moves to seek a legal remedy.
As the renewed political turmoil in South Korea takes shape, both major parties have tended to interpret the acting president’s roles and responsibilities in their own interest – often in contradictory ways – as no law or the Constitution clearly defines Mr Han’s roles.
The main opposition party, for example, has not consistently denied the acting president’s authority.
The party has recognised Mr Han’s authority to name three new Constitutional Court justices for President Yoon’s impeachment trial, demanding Han approve them immediately after the opposition-controlled parliament approves their nomination. The nine-member Constitutional Court currently has six justices.
On the other hand, it was the ruling People Power Party that claimed that Mr Han was not authorised to approve the nomination of justices.
With the political conflict reaching extremes, South Korea could suffer social unrest observed by enemies in North Korea, Prof Chang said.
“A significant change in South Korea’s situation could cause serious problems, so strife between the ruling and opposition parties should give way to the stabilisation of state affairs,” Prof Chang said. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
Join ST’s Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
