24-3-2025 (SEOUL) South Korea’s Constitutional Court has overturned the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, marking another chapter in the nation’s complex political saga.
The ruling, delivered with a decisive majority of five justices supporting dismissal of the charges, whilst two outright rejected the motion and one favoured removal, brings Han back to his position as acting president—a role he briefly held following President Yoon Suk Yeol’s December impeachment.
At the heart of this constitutional crisis lies a dispute over judicial appointments. The Democratic Party (DP), wielding considerable influence with 170 seats in the 300-member parliament, initiated Han’s impeachment after he declined to endorse three nominees—Chung Kye-sun, Cho Han-chang and Ma Eun-hyuk—for the Constitutional Court, citing insufficient cross-party agreement.
The constitutional quandary deepened when Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok, who stepped into Han’s shoes during his suspension, subsequently filled two of the three vacant positions. The court later ruled that whilst Choi had indeed breached parliamentary rights by refusing to appoint Ma Eun-hyuk, they lacked the authority to mandate the appointment.
During February’s impeachment proceedings, opposing counsels locked horns over the constitutional parameters of judicial appointments. The Assembly’s legal team characterised Han’s refusal as an act of reckless endangerment to national stability, whilst his defence maintained that such appointments remain the exclusive domain of the executive.
This latest ruling adds to a remarkable pattern: of 29 impeachment motions passed by the DP since Yoon’s administration began in May 2022, the Constitutional Court has rejected 10, with none receiving judicial endorsement. Nevertheless, the opposition remains undeterred, having recently tabled a fresh impeachment motion against Choi.
The court’s pending decision on President Yoon’s impeachment, now extending beyond 100 days, remains a pivotal moment in South Korea’s political landscape. The Democratic Party’s concerns about potential dissent affecting the outcome underscore the delicate balance of power within the nation’s highest judicial body.
