A Compromising Conclusion of “No Dismissal Though Admitting Some Faults”

The Constitutional Court of Korea (CCK)’s decision of dismissal of President Roh’s impeachment case is likely to be interpreted as a “product of compromise between majority and minority.”

This is because the CCK strongly pointed out Roh’s violation of the election laws and violation of the duty to protect the constitutional law, that were pointed out by a few judges, even though it sentenced “dismissal” in accordance with the majority’s opinion. Therefore, it is a compromising decision that includes the “dismissal of the impeachment and restoration of presidential rights” to the president, while also presenting a good cause to the opposition party which has driven his impeachment case.

Such a conclusion was somewhat predictable considering the constitution of judges in the CCK and their tendencies. Those judges are divided by differing parties, political inclinations, and ideologies. Of course, the CCK says that they “judged fairly” and excluded any political bias, but it is not possible to be influenced by political inclination and ideology under the decision.

In fact, the judges’ discussion became more and more heated as it proceeded. Some judges even said they were unable to sleep after coming home. They put it to a vote, abandoning “unanimous consent” just a few days before making a final sentence. Consequently, it became known that their opinions were divided into a majority opinion of “dismissal” and minority opinion of “support” for the impeachment.

Another controversy was whether the opinion of the minority should be publicized. Most of the judges objected this disclosure based on reasons such as the law, but a few judges argued for this disclosure to be made.

Four out of nine judges initially supported the impeachment, but the number of supporters was reduced to three just before the final sentence. However, it is said these judges’ intensity of their stance became much stronger. There are also many rumors being spread in the political and legal circles that stated, “Five judges insisted on dismissal and one of the six judges rejected the dismissal,” and “it was so-and-so who insisted on impeachment.”

Finally, the court tried to compromise, and as a result, it is known to reflect the minority’s opinion in a written decision instead of opening it separately.

Minority opinion is most clearly reflected in whether Roh violated the election laws or not. The court explicitly clarified that Roh’s statement supporting the party in power in the media such as a reporter’s club press meeting violated “the public servant’s duty of standing neutral” expressed in the ninth clause of the public servants election laws. This shows that they approved the claim of the impeachment committee considerably.

On other issues such as presidential aides’ corruption and the reason of economic breakdown, the court accepted the claim of the president’s attorneys, which was easy to anticipate.

In conclusion, it is recorded that Roh gained a “victory, not feeling so well” and the opposition party gained a “defeat, yet saved face” with the compromising decision of the CCK.

A true victory may come with how the president or political circles accept the lessons from this impeachment and how they practice what they learned from now on.

Soo-Hyung Lee sooh@donga.com