[Anchor]
Throughout the impeachment trial, former President Yoon’s side repeatedly argued that procedural flaws had existed from the very beginning of the impeachment process.
However, the Constitutional Court rejected every one of those claims.
Reporter Shin Hyun-wook has the story.
[Report]
[Yoon Suk Yeol/Former President/Dec. 2024: “The president’s power to declare emergency martial law is a political act, like the power to grant pardons or conduct diplomacy, and is not subject to judicial review.”]
From the moment martial law was declared to the final argument of the impeachment trial.
The former president's side claimed that the emergency martial law is not subject to judicial review.
However, the Constitutional Court did not accept this argument.
It stated that the purpose of the impeachment trial is to protect the constitutional order from the abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
[Moon Hyung-bae/Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court: “Even if the declaration of martial law is a highly political decision, its constitutionality and legality can still be reviewed.”]
Yoon’s team also claimed that because the National Assembly’s impeachment petition omitted the charge of insurrection, the case should be dismissed outright.
But the Court ruled that this did not constitute a withdrawal or amendment of the charges.
The claim that the National Assembly violated the “one-time deliberation” principle by re-submitting and passing the impeachment bill just one week after it had initially failed—was also rejected.
[Moon Hyung-bae/Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court: “Although the first impeachment motion failed during the 418th regular session, the current motion was proposed during the 419th special session, and therefore does not violate the one-time deliberation rule.”]
The issue raised regarding the lack of an investigation procedure by the National Assembly's Legislative and Judiciary Committee was seen as a discretion guaranteed by the National Assembly Act.
The justices concluded that the impeachment motion was lawful and that the National Assembly had not abused its authority.
This is KBS News, Shin Hyun-wook.
Throughout the impeachment trial, former President Yoon’s side repeatedly argued that procedural flaws had existed from the very beginning of the impeachment process.
However, the Constitutional Court rejected every one of those claims.
Reporter Shin Hyun-wook has the story.
[Report]
[Yoon Suk Yeol/Former President/Dec. 2024: “The president’s power to declare emergency martial law is a political act, like the power to grant pardons or conduct diplomacy, and is not subject to judicial review.”]
From the moment martial law was declared to the final argument of the impeachment trial.
The former president's side claimed that the emergency martial law is not subject to judicial review.
However, the Constitutional Court did not accept this argument.
It stated that the purpose of the impeachment trial is to protect the constitutional order from the abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
[Moon Hyung-bae/Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court: “Even if the declaration of martial law is a highly political decision, its constitutionality and legality can still be reviewed.”]
Yoon’s team also claimed that because the National Assembly’s impeachment petition omitted the charge of insurrection, the case should be dismissed outright.
But the Court ruled that this did not constitute a withdrawal or amendment of the charges.
The claim that the National Assembly violated the “one-time deliberation” principle by re-submitting and passing the impeachment bill just one week after it had initially failed—was also rejected.
[Moon Hyung-bae/Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court: “Although the first impeachment motion failed during the 418th regular session, the current motion was proposed during the 419th special session, and therefore does not violate the one-time deliberation rule.”]
The issue raised regarding the lack of an investigation procedure by the National Assembly's Legislative and Judiciary Committee was seen as a discretion guaranteed by the National Assembly Act.
The justices concluded that the impeachment motion was lawful and that the National Assembly had not abused its authority.
This is KBS News, Shin Hyun-wook.
■ 제보하기
▷ 카카오톡 : 'KBS제보' 검색, 채널 추가
▷ 전화 : 02-781-1234, 4444
▷ 이메일 : kbs1234@kbs.co.kr
▷ 유튜브, 네이버, 카카오에서도 KBS뉴스를 구독해주세요!
- Yoon's impeachment claims rejected
-
- 입력 2025-04-05 00:26:55
[Anchor]
Throughout the impeachment trial, former President Yoon’s side repeatedly argued that procedural flaws had existed from the very beginning of the impeachment process.
However, the Constitutional Court rejected every one of those claims.
Reporter Shin Hyun-wook has the story.
[Report]
[Yoon Suk Yeol/Former President/Dec. 2024: “The president’s power to declare emergency martial law is a political act, like the power to grant pardons or conduct diplomacy, and is not subject to judicial review.”]
From the moment martial law was declared to the final argument of the impeachment trial.
The former president's side claimed that the emergency martial law is not subject to judicial review.
However, the Constitutional Court did not accept this argument.
It stated that the purpose of the impeachment trial is to protect the constitutional order from the abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
[Moon Hyung-bae/Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court: “Even if the declaration of martial law is a highly political decision, its constitutionality and legality can still be reviewed.”]
Yoon’s team also claimed that because the National Assembly’s impeachment petition omitted the charge of insurrection, the case should be dismissed outright.
But the Court ruled that this did not constitute a withdrawal or amendment of the charges.
The claim that the National Assembly violated the “one-time deliberation” principle by re-submitting and passing the impeachment bill just one week after it had initially failed—was also rejected.
[Moon Hyung-bae/Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court: “Although the first impeachment motion failed during the 418th regular session, the current motion was proposed during the 419th special session, and therefore does not violate the one-time deliberation rule.”]
The issue raised regarding the lack of an investigation procedure by the National Assembly's Legislative and Judiciary Committee was seen as a discretion guaranteed by the National Assembly Act.
The justices concluded that the impeachment motion was lawful and that the National Assembly had not abused its authority.
This is KBS News, Shin Hyun-wook.
Throughout the impeachment trial, former President Yoon’s side repeatedly argued that procedural flaws had existed from the very beginning of the impeachment process.
However, the Constitutional Court rejected every one of those claims.
Reporter Shin Hyun-wook has the story.
[Report]
[Yoon Suk Yeol/Former President/Dec. 2024: “The president’s power to declare emergency martial law is a political act, like the power to grant pardons or conduct diplomacy, and is not subject to judicial review.”]
From the moment martial law was declared to the final argument of the impeachment trial.
The former president's side claimed that the emergency martial law is not subject to judicial review.
However, the Constitutional Court did not accept this argument.
It stated that the purpose of the impeachment trial is to protect the constitutional order from the abuse of power by high-ranking officials.
[Moon Hyung-bae/Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court: “Even if the declaration of martial law is a highly political decision, its constitutionality and legality can still be reviewed.”]
Yoon’s team also claimed that because the National Assembly’s impeachment petition omitted the charge of insurrection, the case should be dismissed outright.
But the Court ruled that this did not constitute a withdrawal or amendment of the charges.
The claim that the National Assembly violated the “one-time deliberation” principle by re-submitting and passing the impeachment bill just one week after it had initially failed—was also rejected.
[Moon Hyung-bae/Acting Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court: “Although the first impeachment motion failed during the 418th regular session, the current motion was proposed during the 419th special session, and therefore does not violate the one-time deliberation rule.”]
The issue raised regarding the lack of an investigation procedure by the National Assembly's Legislative and Judiciary Committee was seen as a discretion guaranteed by the National Assembly Act.
The justices concluded that the impeachment motion was lawful and that the National Assembly had not abused its authority.
This is KBS News, Shin Hyun-wook.
-
-
신현욱 기자 woogi@kbs.co.kr
신현욱 기자의 기사 모음
-
이 기사가 좋으셨다면
-
좋아요
0
-
응원해요
0
-
후속 원해요
0
오늘의 핫 클릭
실시간 뜨거운 관심을 받고 있는 뉴스
헤드라인
이 기사에 대한 의견을 남겨주세요.