The Constitutional Court’s decision on Monday to reinstate Han Duck-soo as prime minister and acting president has highlighted its reluctance to remove senior officials who have not clearly violated the constitution, raising broader questions about President Yoon Suk-yeol’s impeachment and executive accountability.

In its ruling, the court indicated that Han violated the constitution by refusing to appoint three Constitutional Court justices, but it rejected the Democratic Party’s (DP) argument that this constituted a constitutional crisis warranting his removal.

The decision establishes a high threshold for impeachment based on proportionality, intent and institutional stability, and it effectively serves as a rebuke of the DP’s strategy of impeaching one government official after another in the wake of Yoon’s failed martial law.

Crucially, the ruling leaves the Constitutional Court with space to uphold Yoon’s impeachment in the coming days or weeks, and it highlights what will almost certainly be the core question in determining the result of that case — whether Yoon deliberately violated the constitution in a way that did harm to the country’s democratic order.

But the outcome also means it will be that much harder to push an impeachment through the judicial branch in the future, in practice shifting more of the burden for holding South Korean leaders accountable to the realm of politics.

THE CASE AND THE RULING

Han’s impeachment stemmed from his refusal to appoint three justices to the Constitutional Court. The court reiterated this constitutional obligation in February when it ruled that then-Acting President Choi Sang-mok’s refusal to appoint a final justice was unconstitutional.

However, while the court maintained that Han’s inaction violated the ROK Constitution, it also ruled that it fell short of the threshold for removal. The majority opinion focused on three key points: proportionality, intent and harm to democratic order.

The court determined that Han’s inaction did not cause direct or immediate harm to the democratic system. The justices emphasized that removal from office requires not just a constitutional violation but evidence of deliberate intent to undermine constitutional norms and demonstrable harm to the government’s ability to function.

The dissenting opinion, authored by a single justice, argued that Han’s failure to act was a deliberate violation that threatened constitutional integrity. The dissent emphasized that Han’s inaction created a dangerous precedent, suggesting that high-ranking officials could ignore constitutional obligations without consequence.

This position contrasted with the majority’s more restrained interpretation of constitutional accountability.

South Korea’s eight Constitutional Court justices issue their ruling on Prime Minister Han Duck-soo’s impeachment, March 24, 2025 | Image: ROK Constitutional Court

HIGH THRESHOLD FOR REMOVAL

Monday’s ruling established a high standard for future impeachment cases.

The court’s focus on proportionality and intent indicated that even clear constitutional violations may not justify removal unless they are accompanied by demonstrable harm to democratic stability. This sets a precedent that limits the circumstances under which the court will intervene in political disputes.

The decision also draws a sharp distinction between procedural violations and substantive threats to constitutional order. Han’s failure to appoint justices was framed as a procedural lapse rather than a deliberate subversion of constitutional norms.

Thus, the court’s reliance on proportionality suggests that impeachment will remain a tool of last resort, reserved for cases involving corruption, abuse of power or direct harm to democratic institutions.

The court’s reluctance to intervene reflects an underlying principle of judicial restraint. By setting a high bar for removal, the court seeks to preserve institutional stability and avoid politicization of the judiciary. 

Moreover, this approach places greater responsibility on the political process to address constitutional failures.

IMPLICATIONS FOR YOON’S IMPEACHMENT

The ruling has direct implications for Yoon’s impeachment case.

The impeachment motion against Yoon centers on his Dec. 3 martial law declaration and alleged subversion of constitutional order. The court’s decision in Han’s case suggests that Yoon’s removal will require clear evidence of direct harm to democratic institutions — a higher threshold than political misconduct or procedural violations.

Yoon’s impeachment hinges on whether the court interprets his actions as a threat to democratic order rather than a political overreach. The court’s emphasis on proportionality and intent indicates that Yoon’s martial law declaration must be shown to have caused tangible harm to democratic institutions.

Notably, Yoon has argued that his martial law declaration was not an attempt to suppress democracy or the citizenry, but rather a political tool to appeal to the public about the country’s state of political turmoil.

While it remains to be seen whether the justices might have found the president’s defense sufficiently convincing, the opposition bloc’s argument that Yoon’s actions created a constitutional crisis will face heightened scrutiny under the new precedent established by Han’s case.

If the court rejects Yoon’s impeachment on similar grounds, the responsibility for addressing constitutional violations will shift to the National Assembly and public opinion.

However, while this decision may reflect judicial restraint and place greater responsibility on the political process, South Korea’s political polarization suggests that the ruling may have the unintended effect of further intensifying political divisions and weakening institutional checks on executive power.

A collage of South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol (Nov. 19, 2024) and protesters calling for his removal from office (March 13, 2025) | Image: ROK Presidential Office and Korea Pro, edited by Korea Pro

EROSION OF JUDICIAL DETERRENCE

Crucially, the ruling’s emphasis on proportionality and intent reduces the deterrent effect of impeachment as a check on executive authority. By framing Han’s failure to appoint justices as a procedural lapse rather than a substantive threat to constitutional order, the court has narrowed the scope for judicial intervention in future cases.

This shift increases the risk of constitutional violations being normalized. If constitutional breaches alone are insufficient grounds for removal, future executives may test the limits of constitutional authority with reduced fear of judicial oversight.

The precedent established by Han’s case may embolden political actors to push constitutional boundaries, knowing that removal requires evidence of direct and intentional harm — a much higher bar to prove than procedural violations.

By setting a high bar for removal, the court’s decision raises questions about the long-term effectiveness of constitutional checks and balances.

IMPLICATIONS FOR DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY

The ruling may have emphasized political resolution over judicial intervention, but future constitutional conflicts will likely become more politically charged.

While executives may attempt to test the boundaries of constitutional violations, opposition parties will increasingly resort to alternative strategies, such as mass protests and mobilization, to challenge executive authority. This dynamic will further exacerbate legislative gridlock and deepen political polarization.

The ruling also raises questions about the long-term balance of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches. If the court maintains a conservative stance on impeachment, the National Assembly’s role as a check on executive authority will become more prominent. 

This shift could strengthen parliamentary oversight but also increase political instability if opposition parties respond with renewed impeachment efforts, parliamentary investigations or attempts to limit executive authority through legislation.

Main opposition Democratic Party lawmakers, including party leader Lee Jae-myung, hold a press conference in front of their party’s tend in Gwanghwamun Square, which they plan to use to coordinate further protests against President Yoon Suk-yeol, March 24, 2025 | Image: Democratic Party of Korea

MURKY OUTLOOK

The Constitutional Court’s ruling on Han sets a high legal threshold for impeachment, reinforcing that political accountability will rely more heavily on legislative and electoral mechanisms.

Yoon’s impeachment case will likely face similar scrutiny, with removal dependent on evidence of direct harm to democratic order. If Yoon’s removal effort fails under similar reasoning, it could lead to the short-term challenge of legislative gridlock and the long-term challenge of strengthening South Korea’s imperial presidency.

The ruling’s long-term impact will depend on the effectiveness of political accountability mechanisms. If parliamentary oversight and public pressure fail to enforce constitutional norms, the erosion of judicial deterrence could further weaken South Korea’s democratic institutions.

Edited by Bryan Betts