2025, Impeachment Again: The Republic of Korea Standing at the Crossroads of History
The scene we thought we would never see again has unfolded again after 8 years. On December 9, 2025, the motion to impeach President Yoon Suk-yeol passed the National Assembly. And now, all eyes are on the Constitutional Court in Jae-dong, Seoul.
This impeachment trial is different in nature from the past impeachment of former President Park Geun-hye. If the past was a judgment on the collapse of national systems due to interference in state affairs by non-official figures, this impeachment questions whether the President’s exercise of power itself violated the Constitution and laws, including the refusal of the Special Counsel Act, allegations of interference in elections, and controversy over the suppression of the press.
The First Hearing: A Clash of Spears and Shields
In the first hearing held at the Grand Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, the Impeachment Prosecution Commissioner (Chairman of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee) and the President’s defense counsel engaged in a fierce battle of logic from the start.
The prosecution side defined the President’s repeated exercise of veto power and allegations of interference in the ruling party’s nomination as “a grave act of destroying the Constitution that privatized state power and neutralized the separation of powers.” They argued that “dismissal is the only way to restore constitutional order.”
On the other hand, the President’s side countered that “the impeachment motion is a political offensive based on unconfirmed suspicions and rumors.” They argued that “paralyzing state affairs by impeaching a President elected by the people due to political differences is a destruction of democracy,” appealing for the rejection of the impeachment motion.
Key Issues: Special Counsel, Elections, and Freedom of the Press
The core issues of this trial can be summarized in three main points.
First is the ‘Rejection of the Special Counsel Act.’ The issue is whether the President exercising his veto power on a bill in which his family is a person of interest constitutes a violation of the conflict of interest prevention obligation and abuse of power.
Second is the ‘Allegation of Election Interference.’ The Constitutional Court must determine the truth of the suspicion that the Presidential Office organized and intervened in the party nomination process ahead of the general election.
Third is the ‘Suppression of the Press.’ The issue is whether a series of measures, such as search and seizure of critical media outlets and banning boarding of the presidential plane, infringed upon the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court stated that it would “conduct a swift and fair trial focusing on these issues,” heralding an intensive witness examination.
The Divided Plaza: Candlelight vs. Taegeukgi
While the legal battle is fierce inside the court, a war of public opinion is raging outside. Gwanghwamun Square and City Hall Square are completely divided into ‘Impeachment Approval’ and ‘Impeachment Opposition’ rallies every weekend.
The candlelight vigil side shouts, “A criminal President must descend immediately,” while the Taegeukgi rally side shouts, “Protect the liberal democratic regime from the legislative dictatorship.” The clash between the two sides has gone beyond mere difference of opinion and is turning into emotional hatred. The police have deployed maximum force to prevent physical collisions, but the tension is higher than ever.
The Silence of the Constitutional Court Justices: The Weight of Decision
The key to the decision lies in the hands of the nine Constitutional Court Justices. For an impeachment decision, the approval of 6 or more justices is required.
Currently, the composition of the bench is evaluated as a mix of conservative and progressive inclinations. However, in such a grave case as a presidential impeachment, legal principles and the ‘gravity of the violation of the Constitution’ act as more important variables than political inclination. The justices are maintaining silence, strictly prohibiting outside contact and focusing only on the review of records and legal principles. Their decision will determine the fate of the Republic of Korea.
Scenario Analysis: Rejection vs. Dismissal
Experts’ predictions are mixed.
The prevailing view for ‘Rejection (Return to Office)’ is that “it is difficult to say that the violations of the law revealed so far are grave enough to strip the presidential office.” They analyze that political responsibility and legal responsibility must be distinguished.
On the other hand, the view for ‘Dismissal (Removal from Office)’ emphasizes that “acts that fundamentally damage the constitutional order, such as protecting one’s family and intervening in elections, cannot be tolerated.” They argue that the Constitutional Court will make a decision to confirm the principle of the rule of law.
Regardless of the outcome, the aftermath will be huge. If rejected, the opposition party will face strong backlash, and if dismissed, the conservative camp will riot, making severe social conflict inevitable.
Conclusion: Spring Waits in the Winter of the Special Trial
The winter of 2025 is colder and harsher than ever. However, we know that democracy matures through pain.
This special trial is not just a judgment on a specific person, but a process of confirming the proposition that “sovereignty lies with the people and all authority comes from the people.” No matter what decision the Constitutional Court makes, it must be a milestone that confirms the durability of the constitutional system of the Republic of Korea.
Beyond the icy cold of the impeachment trial, we wait for the spring when justice flows like a river and integration blooms like a flower. The wise judgment of the people is needed to prevent this winter from ending in ruin.
