On the 13th, the Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment motion against Choi Jae-hae, the Chairman of the Board of Audit and Inspection. This came 98 days after the National Assembly impeached Choi last December. It was the first time a constitutional body leader faced impeachment in South Korea's constitutional history. With the court's dismissal decision on the same day, Choi immediately returned to his duties.
The Constitutional Court, at 10 a.m. on the same day in the main courtroom in Jongno, Seoul, unanimously dismissed the impeachment motion against Choi, citing 'violation of the independence of the Board of Audit and Inspection' and other reasons. According to the Constitutional Court Act, at least six justices must support the impeachment for a decision to be accepted. Currently, the court operates with eight justices.
With the dismissal of the impeachment motion, Choi immediately returns to his duties. This follows a suspension of his duties due to the impeachment motion led by the Democratic Party and other opposition parties on December 5th, 2024, lasting 98 days. The court held three preparatory hearings and one trial before concluding the impeachment proceedings for Choi on the 12th of last month.
The National Assembly presented reasons for Choi's impeachment, including ▲damage to the independence of the Board of Audit and Inspection due to revisions to its regulations ▲illegality of targeted audits conducted against the Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission ▲violation of duties as Chairman (regarding the transfer of the Presidential Office, the shooting incident of a public official in the West Sea, the Itaewon disaster, the early closure of the Wolsong Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1, and illegal audits of the National Election Commission) ▲refusal to submit materials requested by the National Assembly's Legislative and Judiciary Committee. During the trial process, there was a fierce debate over the claim that the revision of the Board's directives to grant audit request rights to the Prime Minister had undermined the independence and neutrality of the Board.
On this day, the Constitutional Court stated regarding the rationale for dismissing Choi's impeachment, "It is difficult to conclude that the degree of negative impact or harm resulting from Choi's violation of law reached the level that would deprive him of the trust granted by the citizens," adding, "Therefore, there is no reason to justify Choi's dismissal."
The Constitutional Court noted, "Choi violated Article 56 of the State Public Officials Act by changing the electronic document system of the Board of Audit and Inspection in a way that allowed the execution of audit reports without the review of the commissioner. However, this could be seen as necessary for the smooth implementation of audit results, and it is also difficult to conclude that there was an intent to unduly influence or interfere with the audit results on Choi's part."
Furthermore, the Constitutional Court stated, "Choi violated the National Assembly Testimony and Evidence Law by refusing to allow access to the minutes of the Audit Committee during the on-site verification by the National Assembly committee. However, according to the 'Rules on the Operation of the Audit Committee,' meetings of the Audit Committee are not to be held publicly, which appears to be in place to secure the Board's job-related independence and political neutrality. Considering that the audit reports and related discussions were made public during the on-site verification and that Commissioners participating in the discussions were summoned as witnesses, it is difficult to see that Choi intentionally violated the law in a way that disregards or opposes the legal order."
Additionally, regarding the issue of 'damage to the independence of the Board of Audit and Inspection,' the Constitutional Court stated, "Choi's remarks during the National Assembly's legislative and judiciary committee meetings and state audits, indicating that 'the Board supports the President’s governance,' can be interpreted as contributing to smooth governance through sincere auditing. Therefore, it is not easy to conclude that this implies abandoning independence and neutrality in conducting audits in a biased manner with respect to the President."
The court also stated regarding the revision of directives that granted the Prime Minister the right to request public interest audits: "The provision of audit request rights to the Prime Minister cannot be evaluated as necessarily undermining the Board's job-related independence or political neutrality."
The Constitutional Court did not recognize the National Assembly's allegations that Choi conducted targeted audits against the Chairperson of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission, as well as claims of inadequate audits regarding the transfer of the Presidential Office, the shooting incident of a public official in the West Sea, the Itaewon disaster, and the early closure of Wolsong Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1.
Meanwhile, Justices Lee Mi-seon, Jeong Jeong-mi, and Jeong Gye-seon issued a separate opinion. These justices stated, "Choi's act of revising directives to grant the Prime Minister public interest audit request rights also violates the Constitution and the Board of Audit and Inspection Act."
A separate opinion refers to the reasoning that justices express in their opinions differing from the majority conclusion, even though the conclusions may align.
These justices said, "Choi's revision of the directives to grant the Prime Minister the public interest audit request rights adds to the potential concerns about the limits of the independence of the Board. However, it is also difficult to see that such violations of law are sufficiently serious to justify dismissal."