South Korea’s Constitutional Court Upholds Impeachment, Removes President Yoon From Office

The court votes 8-0 that the president violated the Constitution.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol attends the fourth hearing of his impeachment trial over his short-lived imposition of martial law at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, South Korea, on Jan. 23, 2025. Joen Heon-Kyun/Pool via Reuters

South Korea’s Constitutional Court has unanimously upheld the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol over his short-lived martial law decree.

Acting court chief Moon Hyung-bae read the court’s 8-0 verdict, saying that Yoon’s declaration of martial law did not meet the legal requirement for a national crisis and that Yoon violated the law by sending troops to South Korea’s parliament, the National Assembly, which has been alleged as an effort to stop a vote to lift his decree.

There are currently eight sitting justices with one seat vacant, and six had to support the National Assembly’s impeachment for it to stand. At least seven justices are required to meet quorum to deliberate.

The court’s quorum after this month is in doubt as the terms of two liberal-leaning justices, Moon and Justice Lee Mison, expire in April. Yoon’s ruling party had been refusing to appoint justices to the court, citing political bias in the candidates nominated by the opposition-led National Assembly without the government’s support.

The April 4 decision affirmed Yoon’s Dec. 14, 2024, impeachment by the opposition-led national assembly, which had accused Yoon of abusing his power and breaching the Constitution in his Dec. 3 martial law decree. It recognized that the charge of insurrection had been removed by the opposition party from the original impeachment motion.

The Constitutional Court’s decision to uphold the Assembly’s impeachment permanently removes Yoon from office, cutting short his first five-year term that would have otherwise ended in May 2027.

The court’s decision triggers a snap election that will be called within 60 days.

Yoon did not attend court for the verdict, which was televised across the nation, with his legal team citing considerations for public order and security.

Despite calls for a swift decision, the court’s 38-day deliberation for its final ruling on the president’s impeachment was the longest on record—more than five weeks. During the impeachments of former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye, the court took only 14 days and 11 days, respectively.

Since martial law was declared, mass protests have been seen in Seoul both in support of the president’s message as well as against him, with calls for his permanent removal, in what has been a tense time of political uncertainty for the world’s 12th largest economy.

Impeachment Charges

Yoon was impeached by the National Assembly for violating the Constitution and illegal acts of sedition, the opposition-led motion said.

The 300-seat National Assembly removed Yoon on Dec. 14 in a 204–85-11 vote, as 12 members of Yoon’s People Power Party (PPP) voted in favor of a second impeachment motion amid party infighting and Yoon’s refusal to resign.

A two-thirds vote was needed for the impeachment; 11 abstained or submitted invalid votes.

The opposition said that Yoon attempted to arrest members of the National Assembly by deploying armed forces to allegedly undermine the authority of the Legislature and disrupt democratic process as outlined in the Constitution.

The motion also said Yoon’s actions were an abuse of power, posing enough of a threat to South Korea’s democratic system to warrant his disqualification from holding office.

On Dec. 3, members of the public defied the president’s martial law order to gather in protest outside the Assembly, urged on by the opposition leader, while members of Yoon’s party tried to prevent the session by physically blocking entry, and opposition lawmakers jumped fences to enter after troops secured the perimeter.

Despite the chaos at the Legislature, all 190 lawmakers present in the National Assembly voted to annul the decree just 2 1/2 hours after Yoon’s announcement.

All 108 lawmakers from Yoon’s party boycotted the vote.

Four hours after the vote at 5:18 a.m., Yoon’s cabinet gathered to officially lift the order.

Yoon argued to the Constitutional Court that he acted in line with the Constitution on Dec. 3, as declaring martial law is within a president’s executive authority and not subject to judicial review.

He said his intention was to use the emergency action not to grab power but to “make an emergency appeal” to South Koreans about the political deadlock between the executive and legislative branches that has created a governance crisis for the country.

Yoon also said his deployment of 280 troops to the National Assembly was not to prevent lawmakers from voting, as alleged by the opposition party, but to maintain order. This is why the National Assembly was able to gather to vote to lift the martial law decree, he has said, noting the difference with past martial law decrees in the country.

Some military and military officials testified that Yoon ordered them to drag out lawmakers to frustrate a floor vote on his decree and detain his political opponents.

South Korea has seen at least 16 martial law declarations since 1948, 12 of them for non-military emergencies. The most recent was in 1980 when tens of thousands of troops were dispatched to quell a pro-democracy rebellion against the military dictatorship of Chun Doo-hwan in the southern city of Gwangju.

Paralysis of Government, Claims of Election Fraud

In his Dec. 3 martial law announcement, Yoon warned that the opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) had launched an “unprecedented number” of impeachment motions—22—against cabinet ministers and public officials to paralyzed the government.

Yoon accused lawmakers of “anti-state acts aimed at instigating rebellion,” citing budget cuts that have affected gas projects, military officers, and government payments like child care support. He also highlighted national security threats that were going unaddressed, giving the example of Chinese nationals who were recently caught with years worth of photos from Korean military installations on their devices.

In subsequent comments explaining his martial law order, Yoon addressed publicly for the first time “serious matters that have not been revealed directly to the public,” pointing to roadblocks facing his government’s efforts to investigate reported security risks at South Korea’s National Election Commission (NEC).

In a “Letter to the People” dated Jan. 15, Yoon admitted that he had also ordered 290 troops to the grounds of the NEC, where “a few dozen digital agents” went inside the building to check the voting systems and assess the necessity of an investigation into alleged election fraud.

Yoon said the NEC has refused to cooperate with requests for access after a court found vulnerabilities in their servers. The NEC has dismissed the allegations as groundless, and said the troop deployment was “illegal and unconstitutional.”

Yoon said the troops withdrew immediately after the National Assembly passed the resolution to lift martial law, without causing any injuries or damage.

“If a huge number of fake ballots were discovered during the ballot box counting in the election lawsuit, and the NEC’s computer system is vulnerable to hacking and manipulation, and significantly falls short of the standards of a normal government agency’s computer system—and if they not only make no effort to correct this but refuse to verify and confirm whether the announced number of votes matches the actual number of voters—then a comprehensive election fraud system has been put in to operation,” Yoon wrote.

The opposition says the PPP’s claims of election fraud are fueled by their discontent over the party’s losses in the April 2024 legislative elections.

Insurrection Charges Being Pursued Separately

Yoon initially also faced criminal insurrection charges in the constitutional court, which carry a maximum penalty of death or life in prison. The charges were removed on Jan. 3 to focus on alleged constitutional breaches during the martial law decree rather than criminal charges.

Opposition lawmakers said the move would expedite the case, while the PPP said it “exposed legal flaws in the impeachment motion.”

The criminal charges of leading an alleged insurrection are now being pursued by prosecutors in a separate trial, upon recommendation to the Assembly by the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO), an agency set up during the former Moon Jae-in administration.

After weeks of non-cooperation for court appearances in what Yoon called an “illegal investigation,” the Seoul Western District Court granted a detention warrant, and the president allowed himself to be arrested on Jan. 15 citing concerns about protesters’ wellbeing.

Yoon was formally indicted on Jan. 26 and detained for 52 days before he was released from custody on March 8 when the Seoul Central District Court annulled his arrest warrant over procedural issues and concerns about the legality of the investigation.

The court has raised concerns about the CIO’s jurisdiction over insurrection cases. The first formal trial in the case is expected on April 24.