Court rejects impeachment of Justice Minister park

South Korea’s Constitutional Court on Wednesday unanimously dismissed the National Assembly’s impeachment of Justice Minister Park Sung-jae, 119 days after lawmakers approved the motion.

The court ruled that Park’s actions did not meet the threshold required to justify removal from office, stating they were not serious enough to undermine public trust. Park immediately returned to his post following the ruling.

The court rejected all three grounds for impeachment: allegedly aiding the president’s martial law declaration, refusing to submit requested documents to the Assembly, and walking out of a plenary session. Justices said there was no evidence that Park, either implicitly or explicitly, supported the president’s decision to declare martial law.

Park met with top officials — including former Interior Minister Lee Sang-min, Legislation Secretary Lee Wan-kyu, and Senior Presidential Secretary for Civil Affairs Kim Joo-hyun — the day after the declaration. But the court said the meeting alone did not prove Park participated in an insurrection or planned a legal response to one.

On the issue of withholding documents related to Jang Si-ho, the niece of Choi Soon-sil, the court acknowledged a violation of the National Assembly Testimony Act. However, it found the violation was not intentional and did not justify impeachment.

With Wednesday’s decision, the court has concluded all martial law-related impeachment cases involving eight senior officials — except for Police Commissioner General Cho Ji-ho, who is undergoing treatment for leukemia. Of the seven completed cases, only former President Yoon Suk Yeol was removed from office.

Neither the National Assembly nor its legal team attended the ruling. Only Park’s attorneys were present.

In a separate 6–2 ruling, the court also dismissed a petition by People Power Party lawmakers challenging National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik’s use of the prime minister’s voting threshold — a simple majority — to pass the impeachment motion. The court said the lawmakers’ voting rights had not been clearly infringed.

Two justices dissented, arguing that the rules on voting thresholds remain ambiguous and that lawmakers were not given adequate time to discuss the matter. The same justices dissented in a similar case last month regarding the impeachment of Acting President Han Duck-soo.


이승우 기자 suwoong2@donga.com