Yoon Suk-yeol’s latest political gambit undoubtedly did not unfold as he expected. After abruptly declaring martial law on December 3, South Korea’s scandal-plagued president was forced to lift the order within hours in the face of public protests and legislative opposition. He now faces an impeachment motion filed by the opposition Democratic Party, which has condemned his “insurrectionary behavior.”
As of this writing, the opposition is eight votes shy of what it needs to oust Yoon. But given the artful design of South Korea’s 1987 constitution and the country’s recent experience with impeachment, the opposition has an advantage, and it stands on firm legal ground. Yoon’s removal would serve as a global example – in stark contrast to the United States – of how democracies can and should deal with those who abuse the privileges of incumbency.
A South Korean president can be impeached for violating “the Constitution or other laws in the performance of official duties.” While a simple majority in the National Assembly can propose an impeachment bill, it must then be approved by a two-thirds supermajority. As in the US, the constitution limits the effect of impeachment to removal from office, and expressly leaves open the possibility of a criminal prosecution. But unlike in the US, a Korean president who faces impeachment immediately passes his or her duties to the prime minister. And in another departure from the American model, the impeachment motion then goes to the Constitutional Court for final approval.
Original source can be found here.