On 4 April 2025, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Korea confirmed the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, upholding the decision of the National Assembly after prolonged deliberations. Thus ends the political career of the former Prosecutor General, and a conditional full stop has been placed in the ongoing constitutional crisis.
A Brief Background
Martial law suspended the activities of political parties and parliament. However, 190 MPs managed to enter the National Assembly building and, in accordance with the Constitution, voted to annul the president’s decree. By the morning of 4 December, Yoon was forced to comply and revoke the declaration.
Subsequently, on 14 December, the National Assembly voted to impeach the president, with 204 votes out of 300 in favour.
A Lengthy Deliberation
Throughout the trial, Yoon Suk Yeol addressed the Court on multiple occasions, defending the legality of his actions and continuing to accuse the opposition of subversion. Representatives of the National Assembly, on the other hand, argued that Yoon had attempted to trample democracy and had staged a rebellion without the constitutional grounds required to impose martial law.
The Constitutional Court deliberated on Yoon’s impeachment for 38 days — the longest period in the country’s history taken to reach a decision on a presidential impeachment. By comparison, it took the Court just 14 days in 2004 to decide on Roh Moo-hyun’s case, and 11 days in 2017 for Park Geun-hye’s. But unlike those two cases, this time the nation was deeply polarised, prompting the Court to deliberate for over a month.
Firstly, it was widely assumed that three justices — known for their conservative leanings — might vote against impeachment. With only eight judges on the bench, six votes were needed to confirm the decision. Had there been fewer, Yoon would have been reinstated “on a technicality.”
Secondly, on 24 March, the Court annulled the impeachment of acting President and Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, who had been removed from office at the end of December for refusing to appoint judges to fill three vacant seats on the Constitutional Court (two of which were later filled).
The Final Verdict
The Court’s session was broadcast live, with the entire nation watching in suspense. The authorities prepared for possible unrest: 14,000 police officers were deployed to Seoul, and a designated “security zone” was established within a 100–150 metre radius of the Court. Most embassies of major powers, including Russia, advised their citizens to avoid public gatherings.
Acting Chief Justice Moon Hyung-bae read the verdict, which was supported unanimously by all eight judges. The former president was found guilty of violating the Constitution and other laws. The key points of the ruling may be summarised as follows:
- Budgetary matters fall under the legitimate authority of the National Assembly and do not in themselves constitute grounds for a state of emergency. Nor is the tactic of total impeachment unconstitutional. Contrary to Yoon’s assertions, the situation was not an emergency.
- No discussion of martial law took place during the State Council meeting. Yoon acted unilaterally, without consultation.
- The proclamation suspending the National Assembly’s operations violated both the Constitution and the Martial Law Act.
- Deploying military and police forces to the National Assembly amounted to obstruction of parliamentary functions and was a breach of the Constitution.
In conclusion: “The respondent declared the martial law in question with the intent of overcoming opposition from the National Assembly, and subsequently mobilised military and police forces to prevent the Assembly from exercising its constitutional powers, thereby undermining the principles of popular sovereignty and democracy.”
In the end, Moon Hyung-bae stated plainly: “The benefit of defending the Constitution by removing the respondent [from office] significantly outweighs the harm suffered by the state as a result of the respondent’s [Yoon’s] dismissal.”
Thus, Yoon Suk Yeol became the third president of the Republic of Korea to be impeached — following Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye — and the second, after Park, to be effectively removed from power.
Likely Reasons Behind the Decision
From the outset, it was clear that the Constitutional Court would be making a political decision — taking into account not only the extent to which the Constitution had been violated, but also the reaction of public opinion. In the author’s view, several factors contributed to the unanimous ruling.
Firstly, there were indeed grounds to find the president guilty of violating the Constitution. The suspension of parliamentary activities and obstruction of a vote constituted sufficient charges.
Secondly, the majority of the public supported impeachment. According to the latest poll, 57% were in favour of removing Yoon from office, while 35% were opposed. This meant that a decision in Yoon’s favour would likely have sparked a far greater public backlash, potentially escalating into civil disobedience campaigns.
Thirdly, impeachment provides an opportunity to resolve the protracted constitutional crisis, as presidential elections are due to be held within two months. Had Yoon been reinstated, the country would have returned to a state of deadlock, with the opposition — still holding a commanding majority in parliament — continuing to block any presidential initiatives while seeking grounds for yet another impeachment. Meanwhile, the president would be unable to act effectively without resorting to extraordinary measures — measures which, as has become clear, are deeply unpopular.
Fourthly, one must take into account the pressure placed on the judges, particularly from the opposition. Some of its representatives openly stated that any justice who failed to remove Yoon from power would be no different from the so-called “Five Traitors” who once handed Korea over to Japanese rule.
Reactions from Both Sides
Yoon Suk-yeol’s legal team described the Constitutional Court’s ruling as a “legally groundless decision — destructive and regrettable.”
The Democratic Party welcomed the ruling, calling it “just” and describing it as “a victory for the people and for democracy.”
The ruling People Power Party stated that it accepted the Constitutional Court’s decision with humility. Its leadership issued a public apology to the nation for failing to fulfil its duties as the governing party.
Yoon Suk Yeol himself, speaking through his lawyers, said: “I am truly and deeply sorry that I failed to live up to expectations.” He also expressed heartfelt gratitude to those who have supported — and continue to support — him despite his shortcomings. He added: “Dear citizens, it was a great honour to serve the Republic of Korea. I will always pray for our beloved country and its people.”
It is also worth noting, on a positive note, that no serious incidents or unrest occurred — with the exception of one Yoon supporter who attempted to damage a police vehicle and was detained..
The Author’s View on What Comes Next
As a former president, Yoon is now required to vacate the official residence, where the presidential standard has already been lowered. His photographs and portraits have begun to be removed from military units and public institutions.
The outlook, overall, is bleak. A case of insurrection has already been opened against him and will most likely end in a conviction.
Within 60 days of the impeachment decision, a snap presidential election must be held. The Democrats are keen to hold it as soon as possible — ideally before the Supreme Court has a chance to overturn the acquittal of Lee Jae-myung, who remains the clear frontrunner. According to the latest poll, he enjoys 49.5% support. However, his disapproval rating is just as high. He remains under investigation in several criminal cases, and verdicts have not yet been delivered. This means we should be prepared for unexpected turns of events.
In any case, the storyline involving martial law and impeachment has now drawn to a close. The next season will be about the presidential election — and it, too, promises to be anything but dull.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading research fellow at the Center for Korean Studies, Institute of China and Modern Asia, Russian Academy of Sciences
