[News Today] MARTIAL LAW DECREE DEBATED
입력 2025.01.22 (16:31)
수정 2025.01.22 (16:32)
읽어주기 기능은 크롬기반의
브라우저에서만 사용하실 수 있습니다.
[LEAD]
Next, we examine the issues debated at yesterday's impeachment hearing. President Yoon Suk Yeol's team contends the martial law decree was not intended to halt National Assembly operations. Now, this prohibition of political activities is a pivotal issue in the impeachment trial, raising questions about its constitutionality.
[REPORT]
The first proclamation of the martial law decree was the prohibition of all political activities by the National Assembly, local government councils and political parties.
President Yoon's legal team claimed that this decree was just a formality and didn't intend to actually dissolve the National Assembly or ban legislative activities.
Cha Ki-hwan / President Yoon's legal rep.
The decree was to establish the form of martial law, with no intent to enforce it, nor was enforcement possible due to conflicts with higher laws.
They maintained that ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun who had written the draft had copied the specifics of the martial law declared under the former military dictatorship.
However, the former minister had stated that the president had personally examined the document.
Lee Ha-sang / Attorney for Ex-Defense Minister (Jan. 16)
It contained content on the prohibition of political activities, so there seemed to be no misunderstanding regarding that point.
President Yoon also denied allegations that he had given a note regarding an emergency legislative body to replace the National Assembly, mentioning former Minister Kim.
Moon Hyung-bae / Acting Chief Justice of Constitutional Court
Have you ever given the finance minister a note ordering him to draw up a budget to establish an emergency national legislative body?
Yoon Suk Yeol / President
The defense minister was the only one who could make it, but I couldn't make sure because he was already in custody then.
Whether the martial law decree meant to paralyze parliamentary functions is key to determining the decree's unconstitutionality, so both sides are likely to fight fiercely over this issue in later hearings.
Noh Hee-beom / Attorney (Former Constitutional Court researcher)
No excuse can justify the attempt to paralyze the Nat'l Assembly's authority and destroy Constitutional order. That's why it was the first thing Acting Chief Justice questioned.
Ex-Defense Minister Kim will be at tomorrow's hearing as a witness at the request of President Yoon's team.
■ 제보하기
▷ 카카오톡 : 'KBS제보' 검색, 채널 추가
▷ 전화 : 02-781-1234, 4444
▷ 이메일 : kbs1234@kbs.co.kr
▷ 유튜브, 네이버, 카카오에서도 KBS뉴스를 구독해주세요!
- [News Today] MARTIAL LAW DECREE DEBATED
-
- 입력 2025-01-22 16:31:55
- 수정2025-01-22 16:32:24
[LEAD]
Next, we examine the issues debated at yesterday's impeachment hearing. President Yoon Suk Yeol's team contends the martial law decree was not intended to halt National Assembly operations. Now, this prohibition of political activities is a pivotal issue in the impeachment trial, raising questions about its constitutionality.
[REPORT]
The first proclamation of the martial law decree was the prohibition of all political activities by the National Assembly, local government councils and political parties.
President Yoon's legal team claimed that this decree was just a formality and didn't intend to actually dissolve the National Assembly or ban legislative activities.
Cha Ki-hwan / President Yoon's legal rep.
The decree was to establish the form of martial law, with no intent to enforce it, nor was enforcement possible due to conflicts with higher laws.
They maintained that ex-Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun who had written the draft had copied the specifics of the martial law declared under the former military dictatorship.
However, the former minister had stated that the president had personally examined the document.
Lee Ha-sang / Attorney for Ex-Defense Minister (Jan. 16)
It contained content on the prohibition of political activities, so there seemed to be no misunderstanding regarding that point.
President Yoon also denied allegations that he had given a note regarding an emergency legislative body to replace the National Assembly, mentioning former Minister Kim.
Moon Hyung-bae / Acting Chief Justice of Constitutional Court
Have you ever given the finance minister a note ordering him to draw up a budget to establish an emergency national legislative body?
Yoon Suk Yeol / President
The defense minister was the only one who could make it, but I couldn't make sure because he was already in custody then.
Whether the martial law decree meant to paralyze parliamentary functions is key to determining the decree's unconstitutionality, so both sides are likely to fight fiercely over this issue in later hearings.
Noh Hee-beom / Attorney (Former Constitutional Court researcher)
No excuse can justify the attempt to paralyze the Nat'l Assembly's authority and destroy Constitutional order. That's why it was the first thing Acting Chief Justice questioned.
Ex-Defense Minister Kim will be at tomorrow's hearing as a witness at the request of President Yoon's team.
이 기사가 좋으셨다면
-
좋아요
0
-
응원해요
0
-
후속 원해요
0
이 기사에 대한 의견을 남겨주세요.