Opposition: “Presidential act of governance also subject to judicial review”

[Anchor]

The Democratic Party has conducted a detailed analysis of the president's address and has also issued a rebuttal.

They argued that there are no provisions in the Martial Law Act that allow for the control of the National Assembly, and that presidential acts of governance can also be subject to judicial review.

This is a report by Min Jeong-hee.

[Report]

The Democratic Party has begun a fact-check regarding President Yoon's address.

First, regarding President Yoon's claim that he exercised his legal authority as president within the framework of the Constitution, they emphasized that "there is no provision in the Martial Law Act that allows for the control of the National Assembly."

Additionally, in response to President Yoon's statement that he declared martial law as a 'warning measure' to inform the public of the anti-national atrocities of the large opposition party and to stop them, they argued that "the Martial Law Act specifies that the conditions for martial law include situations where the performance of social functions is significantly difficult, such as in a state of war," asserting that "a declaration of martial law for mere warning purposes is unconstitutional and illegal."

[Kim Min-seok/Democratic Party Supreme Council Member: "The statement that a failed martial law was planned in violation of the Constitution and laws is an expression of extreme delusion..."]

President Yoon stated that presidential acts of governance cannot be subject to judicial review.

[President Yoon Suk Yeol: "Emergency martial law measures are a highly political judgment by the president and can only be controlled by the National Assembly's demand for repeal."]

The Democratic Party countered that acts of governance can also be subject to judicial review.

They cited a Constitutional Court decision stating that "state actions carried out by a highly political decision can be subject to review if they are directly related to the infringement of the basic rights of the people."

In response to the claim that "temporarily deploying a small number of troops to maintain order is not a riot," they emphasized, citing Supreme Court precedents from the May 18 military coup incident, that "it constitutes a threatening act, which meets the criteria for the crime of insurrection, thus qualifying as a riot."

This is KBS News, Min Jeong-hee.