Constitutional Court rules against acting President Choi
The Constitutional Court ruled on Thursday that acting President Choi Sang-mok violated the National Assembly’s right to fill three seats on the court’s nine-member bench by selectively refusing to approve a candidate nominated by the legislature.
In a unanimous 8-0 ruling, the court said Choi has a duty appoint Ma Eun-hyuk, a senior judge in the Seoul Western District Court, as its ninth justice.
However, the decision also rejected the Assembly’s argument that the Constitutional Court could compel Choi to appoint Ma.
The ruling is expected to put pressure on Choi to approve Ma’s nomination, which could potentially influence the court’s upcoming rulings in the impeachment cases against President Yoon Suk Yeol and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo.
A high-ranking government official who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity after the ruling said the acting president “respects the court’s decision” and “will examine the text of the verdict.”
The ruling came exactly two months after Han, who served as acting president before Choi, was impeached by the National Assembly for declining to fill any of the court’s vacancies, citing a lack of bipartisan consensus.
Upon succeeding Han as acting president on Dec. 31, 2024, Choi invoked the same reasoning in his refusal to appoint Ma, even as he approved the nominations of the two other candidates, Jo Han-chang and Chung Kye-sun.
Jo served as an attorney before his nomination by the conservative People Power Party (PPP), while Chung served as chief of the Seoul Western District Court before being recommended by the liberal Democratic Party (DP).
Under the Constitutional Court Act, the president, the National Assembly and the chief justice of the Supreme Court can each nominate three justices for the court’s nine-member bench, but only the president holds the power of appointment.
The seats reserved for justices recommended by the legislature became vacant in October last year after their previous incumbents’ terms expired.
The DP, which holds a majority in the National Assembly, had demanded that Han and later Choi fill all three empty seats following Yoon’s impeachment.
The court can only effect Yoon’s removal from office if at least six of the eight current justices vote to uphold the parliamentary impeachment motion against him.
Had the court proceeded to hear the impeachment case against Yoon with six members, opposition to his dismissal from just one justice could have resulted in his reinstatement.
Thursday’s decision wraps up the competence dispute initiated by National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik against Choi’s refusal to appoint Ma.
The court postponed its ruling in the case, initially due on Feb. 3, after accepting Choi’s argument that the Assembly speaker cannot file a competence dispute without a corresponding parliamentary motion, which the Assembly adopted on Feb. 14.
After the ruling, Woo called on Choi to appoint Ma so the court could operate with a full bench.
However, PPP floor leader Kweon Seong-dong urged the acting president to not follow through with the court’s decision.
Even if Choi were to appoint Ma immediately, it is unclear whether the ninth justice could participate in the court’s decision-making process in the impeachment case against Yoon, whose trial concluded earlier this week.
Article 301 of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulates that a trial must be re-run when a judge is changed or added after proceedings have started.
However, the article says this requirement does not apply in cases where only the verdict has yet to be announced.
The court has also previously issued an opinion that some provisions of the law do not fully apply to impeachment trials, which it says differ in nature from regular criminal trials.
How Thursday’s ruling might influence the court’s decision regarding Han’s impeachment also remains uncertain.
While the latest decision makes it clear that Choi infringed on the Assembly’s right to appoint justices, it remains silent on whether this action constitutes sufficient grounds for impeachment.