Previous 23 / 62 Next

the plenary session shall be opened at two o'clock p.m. (on Saturday, at ten o'clock a.m.): provided, That the Speaker may change the opening time after consulting with the representative assemblyperson of each negotiating party," thereby providing that a change of the opening time shall be subject to the consultation with the representing assemblyperson of each negotiation party. The 'consultation' here may occur in various forms, by its nature, as the process for exchanging and receiving opinions, and the Speaker of the National Assembly makes the final judgment and decision upon matters regarding such consultation. In the instant case, considering that a normal deliberation process pursuant to the National Assembly Act was hardly anticipated due to the continuous occupation of the floor for the general meeting by the assemblypersons of the Uri Party notwithstanding the fact that the impeachment motion was to be discarded past March 12, 2004 for the expiration of the time limit, and further considering that the prevailing majority of the assemblypersons, including the assemblypersons of the Uri Party, were present at the designated venue when the general meeting at issue was opened at approximately 11:22 on March 12, 2004, the mere fact that the Representative Assemblyperson of the Uri Party and the Speaker of the National Assembly did not directly discuss the opening time cannot, by itself, be deemed as a violation of Article 72 of the National Assembly Act or as an infringement on the right of assemblypersons of the Uri Party membership to examine and vote. E. On the argument that the voting was unilaterally declared to be closed The respondent alleges that the Speaker of the National Assembly unilaterally declared that the voting was closed disregarding whether or not the assemblypersons of the Uri Party would intend to participate in voting. However, the minutes of the National Assembly general meeting for March 12, 2004 indicate that the Speaker, at that time, urged two or three times those who had not yet voted to participate in voting and declared that the voting would be closed should there be no more votes. It cannot be, then, deemed that the Speaker of the National Assembly obstructed the Uri Party assemblypersons from exercising their voting rights by unilaterally closing the voting. - 163 -

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