Previous 22 / 62 Next

C. On the arguments of the forced voting, the nonsecret vote, and the proxy vote for the Speaker of the National Assembly (1) Even if the Grand National Party and the New Millennium Democratic Party publicly declared that they "will oust from the party those assemblypersons who will not participate in the vote for the impeachment measure," this cannot be deemed as pressure or threat substantively preventing the assemblypersons from exercising their voting right pursuant to their conscience (Article 46(2) of the Constitution, and Article 114-2 of the National Assembly Act) beyond the boundaries of the party control permissible under today's party democracy. (2) Even if it was true that the screen at the voting booth was not pulled down at the time of voting or certain assemblypersons disclosed the content of their votes to the party whip of their respective party membership, the question of the effect of such on the validity of the voting at the National Assembly is a matter for which the decision of the National Assembly, with its self-regulating authority regarding the deliberation process, should be respected. The Speaker of the National Assembly confirmed the validity of the votes, thereby, declaring the passing of the impeachment resolution, and there is no clear basis or materials indicating a patent violation of the Constitution or statutes. Therefore, the Constitutional Court may not deny the effect of the votes on or the passing of the impeachment resolution, solely on these alleged facts. (3) With respect to the argument that the Speaker of the National Assembly voted by proxy, voting by proxy means that 'someone does not mark the vote and, instead, has a third party mark the vote on his or her behalf.' The acknowledged facts here merely indicate that the Speaker of the National Assembly, pursuant to the custom within the National Assembly, marked the vote himself from the seat reserved for the Speaker, folded the voting paper to secure the content of the vote from disclosure to others, and forwarded such voting paper to an officer so that the officer put the vote into the ballot box. Therefore, there was no vote by proxy. D. On the argument that the opening time for the National Assembly general meeting was arbitrarily changed The National Assembly Act, with respect to the opening time for its meetings and sessions, provides in Article 72 that the "meeting of - 162 -

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the violations of the electoral code and the Constitution are sufficient to remove the President from office.

Alleged Acts: The National Assembly presented a resolution to the Constitutional Court impeaching the President on the following grounds: (1) supporting a particular political party; (2) acting in contempt of constitutional institutions; (3) receiving illegal campaign funds; (4) corruption; and (5) public remarks as to the retirement from politics. First, the President allegedly made several supporting statements in favor of the Uri Party. Second, failing to express neutrality regarding the National Election Commission's decision. Third, the President allegedly received 100 million Won from the Sun & Moon Group and members of the election camp received 900 million, 700 million, and 1 billion Won which was forwarded to the election camp. Fourth, the President made remarks concerning the amount of illegal funds exceeding that of the Grand National Party would result in their retirement. That amount exceed the amount and the respondent did not act accordingly.

Procedural history: The Assembly passed a resolution alleging that the aforementioned actions violated the Constitution and were grounds for impeachment. The resolution suspended the President's duties.

Summary: The court found that the violation of the law was primarily failure to maintain neutrality. The court further found that other violations failed to surmount to to affirmative violations of the law. An actionable removal of the President requires a balancing test between the gravity of the violation and the impact of removal. For the presidency to removed the gravity of the violation must "overwhelming outweigh" the decision to remove. The President's methodology for ascertaining the political office must constitute a threat to the democratic functioning of the nation.

Conclusion: The violations are not sufficient to remove the siting President from office.

Legal Issue(s)

Campaign Finance
Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity

Applicable Law(s): Daehanminikik Hunbeob [Hunbeob][Constitution] art 65 (S. Kor.).

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: South Korea

Language of Decision

English

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Presidential

Date of decision: May 14, 2004

Geolocation

Latitude: 37.6937359

Longitude: 126.878427

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

e2004n1_1.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun

Primary Documents

Notifications