Title: South Korea’s Impeachment Crisis: The Tussle Over Constitutional Appointments
Article:
South Korea’s impeachment crisis has triggered a heated debate over the appointment of constitutional court justices, with the ruling Democratic Party (DP) and main opposition People Power Party (PPP) squaring off over the issue.
President Moon Jae-in’s acting chief, Han Duck-soo, argued that appointing constitutional court justices without bipartisan agreement undermines the country’s constitutional order. "I wonder if it’s in line with our constitutional order for the acting president to make a political decision without bipartisan agreement," he said in a national address.
However, National Assembly Speaker Kim Jin-pyo contradicted this stance, stating that the acting president’s refusal to appoint justices based on a parliamentary recommendation was "lame" and "debatable." Kim emphasized that the parliamentary process for recommending justices had already involved bipartisan negotiations.
Adding complexity to the issue, the Constitutional Court has already stated that acting presidents can appoint justices. Yet, Han Duck-soo insisted on bipartisan agreement, drawing criticism for seemingly shirking his responsibilities. His contradictory stances—the refusal to appoint justices while also actively using other presidential powers, like vetoing bills—have not gone unnoticed.
Raising concerns about the political turmoil, Han Duck-soo intimated that if the PPP’s pressures continue, it could lead to a situation where acting presidents henceforth refrain from exercising their constitutional powers. The PPP, however, reiterated that Han should not make the appointments, with party leader Kimговеogon delivering this message personally to Han.
The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation of the constitution. While DP argues that the parliamentary process for recommending justices already involves bipartisan negotiations, PPP insists that the acting president’s final decision on appointment should also consider bipartisan agreement. The political impasse showcases the delicate balancing act between the executive and legislative branches in times of crisis.
Worth a look