Previous 43 / 62 Next

ground for impeachment in this regard. (6) Act interfering with free election by threatening the public With respect to the ground for impeachment under this count, there is no specific facts alleged in this regard, instead, the impeachment resolution merely alleges that the respondent interfered with the public's free election by 'inducing support for a particular political party by threatening the public and by repeatedly making statements affecting the public's will concerning the general election.' There is no factual basis to find that the respondent's statements concerning the election had a pervasive effect in the general community of public officials thereby actually affecting negatively upon the neutrality of public officials at the election, that the executive organization of which the respondent is the chief officer intervened in the election for a particular political party, or that the function of the election management commission was impeded upon. Nor is it plausible to deem that the respondent thereby interfered with or distorted the unbridled formation of the public's will concerning the election or interfered with the free exercise of voting rights. Therefore, the respondent's statements neither interfered with free election nor did such statements violate Article 237(1)(iii) of the Public Officials Election Act providing for the crime of interfering with the election. C. Acts at issue with respect to the obligation to abide by and protect the Constitution (Articles 66(2) and 69 of the Constitution) (1) The President's obligation to abide by and protect the Constitution Article 66 of the Constitution, in Section 2, 'obligates' the President 'to protect the independence of the state, the preservation of the territorial integrity, the continuity of the state, and the nation's Constitution,' and in Section 3 'obligates' the President 'to faithfully endeavor for the peaceful reunification of the nation.' Article 69 of the Constitution obligates the President to take an oath of office, the content of which corresponds to such obligations. Article 69 of the Constitution not only sets forth the obligation of the President to take an oath of office, but also functions as a substantive provision specifying and emphasizing the constitutional obligations of the Pres- - 183 -

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