The office of President Yoon Suk-yeol stated on the 27th that the Constitutional Court's decision to withhold the appointment of Constitutional Court candidate Ma Eun-hyeok by Acting President and Minister of Strategy and Finance Choi Sang-mok infringed upon the National Assembly's "authority to constitute the Constitutional Court." They added, "Ultimately, this is an order to secure the quorum for the impeachment trial of the President."

Candidate Ma Eun-hyeok for the Constitutional Court judge is contemplating his answers at the confirmation hearing for the selection of Constitutional Court judges held at the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, on the morning of the 23rd. On this day, members of the ruling People Power Party are absent. /Courtesy of News1

The delegation for President Yoon noted in a statement sent to the press that "the major opposition party is focused on a biased composition of the Constitutional Court for the purpose of impeachment against the President, and the Constitutional Court did not put the brakes on the tricks and ulterior motives of the major opposition party."

Previously, the Constitutional Court today issued a unanimous partial ruling in favor of the dispute over authority raised by National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-sik against Acting President Choi. The court stated, "The Acting President's decision not to appoint Ma, who was elected by the National Assembly on December 26 of last year, infringes upon the National Assembly's authority to constitute the Constitutional Court through the election of judges (candidates)." However, Justices Jeong Hyeong-sik, Kim Bok-hyeong, and Cho Han-chang expressed separate opinions stating that for Speaker Woo to file a dispute over authority representing the National Assembly, a resolution from the plenary session is required.

The delegation emphasized, "The public will never tolerate the Constitutional Court's judgment on the unilateral dispute filed by the Speaker of the National Assembly, disregarding the established practice of appointing Constitutional Court judges through bipartisan agreement and without going through National Assembly resolutions," and stated, "The Constitutional Court has abandoned its mission as an institution that upholds the constitution and has chosen to become a political force for the major opposition party instead of a mediator of conflict."

The delegation further stated, "During the process of deliberation, three Constitutional Court judges submitted an opinion to dismiss the dispute because it was illegal to file a dispute without going through a plenary session, and it can be easily inferred that they sought to appoint Ma by first quoting the dispute and secure the six votes needed for the impeachment trial of the President." They added, "Issuing a ruling on this case instead of other pending cases at the Constitutional Court is a political calculation and a trick."

Additionally, the delegation remarked, "It is wrong to try to appoint a candidate with a strong bias toward a particular inclination as a Constitutional Court judge, where the fairness and political neutrality of the trial must be most guaranteed," and emphasized, "The constitution aims to realize empathic values that serve as the foundation for social integration, rather than representing specific ideologies and inclinations; it is meant to realize values that everyone can empathize with."

They continued, "In our youth, we denied the fundamental democratic order as stipulated in our Constitution, and even after becoming a judge, one should not serve as a Constitutional Court judge if they belong to an organization with biased ideologies such as the Study Group for Our Law." The office of President Yoon and the People Power Party have raised questions regarding the political neutrality of candidate Ma, citing his membership in the progressive group and his past donation to former Justice Party member Roh Hoi-chan, followed by a non-prosecution ruling for an associate of the party six days later.

Furthermore, the delegation stated, "The dispute over authority, which ignores procedural legitimacy and constitutional values that complement majority rule through bipartisan agreement, is clearly subject to dismissal," and noted, "Nevertheless, the decision of the Constitutional Court that violates the spirit of the constitution is merely a political expression that the entire public cannot accept."