On the 10th, the Constitutional Court dismissed the impeachment motion against Minister Park Sung-jae by the National Assembly. All eight justices were unanimous in their opinion. Accordingly, Minister Park returned to his duties immediately. This is 119 days after the National Assembly impeached Minister Park on December 12 of last year.
On that day at 2 p.m., the Constitutional Court delivered its decision to dismiss the impeachment of Minister Park with a unanimous opinion from all eight justices in the Constitutional Court's Grand Hearing Room in Jongno-gu, Seoul. The Constitutional Court has restored its 'nine-member system,' but Justice Ma Eun-hyeok, who did not participate in the case proceedings, was absent from the ruling. Justice Ma took office on the 9th.
Previously, on December 12 of last year, the National Assembly impeached Minister Park. The National Assembly claimed that Minister Park participated in the decision to declare martial law at the Cabinet meeting prior to the 12·3 martial law. Additionally, the National Assembly alleged that Minister Park conspired to take follow-up measures related to insurrection at the presidential safe house after the declaration of martial law.
On that day, the Constitutional Court stated, 'There is insufficient evidence or objective data to acknowledge that Minister Park participated in the president's declaration of martial law, so the grounds for this part of the impeachment are not recognized.'
The Constitutional Court noted that among the three claims put forth by the National Assembly as 'acts of participation in insurrection,' regarding the meeting at the presidential safe house in Samcheong-dong, Seoul, 'the mere fact that a meeting was held at the presidential safe house after the lifting of martial law does not allow us to conclude that Minister Park was involved in discussing legal follow-up measures related to insurrection and sought response plans.'
Furthermore, regarding the claim of participation in discussions and decisions on the declaration of martial law, the Constitutional Court stated, 'The mere fact that Minister Park attended a meeting explaining the purpose of the martial law declaration or did not actively dissuade the declaration is not enough to conclude that Minister Park aided the president's declaration of martial law through implied or tacit consent.'
Regarding the instruction to prepare detention facilities at Seoul Eastern Detention Center, the Constitutional Court acknowledged, 'It is recognized that Minister Park urgently convened senior officials of the Ministry of Justice for a meeting immediately after the declaration of martial law and made a comment during a video conference with heads of correctional facilities to 'confirm the capacity for detention,' but it's difficult to acknowledge that this is sufficient to enforce the establishment of detention facilities for members of the National Assembly due to the declaration of martial law.' It further stated, 'There is no evidence or objective data to acknowledge that Minister Park instructed the establishment of detention facilities at Seoul Eastern Detention Center to illegally detain members of the National Assembly.'
Additionally, the Constitutional Court did not accept the National Assembly's claim that 'the act of leaving during a plenary session of the National Assembly was illegal.' The Constitutional Court determined, citing the difficulty of finding a legal basis that 'a minister must not leave the National Assembly until the voting is completed after explaining the reasons for requesting a reconsideration of the bill.'
The National Assembly's assertion that 'Minister Park glared at the opposition leader while returning to his seat after explaining the reasons for reconsideration' was not separately judged.
Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court ruled that regarding the grounds for impeachment related to 'refusal to submit requested materials to the National Assembly,' '(Minister Park) unreasonably failed to comply with the National Assembly's request for materials related to Ms. Jang Si-ho's departure records from the Seoul Detention Center, which violates the National Assembly Act on Testimony and Appraisal.'
However, the Constitutional Court found it difficult to conclude that 'Minister Park violated the law with an active intention to act against the rule of law.' It added, 'It is challenging to assert that the degree of Minister Park's legal violation was serious enough to deprive him of the trust granted indirectly by the public,' stating, 'There are no grounds to justify Minister Park's dismissal.'