In the midst of the impeachment trial of President Yoon Suk-yeol gaining traction, it has been confirmed that President Yoon’s side plans to disclose the reasons for declaring martial law on December 3rd during the second hearing at the Constitutional Court (CC) on the 16th. The President’s representatives are expected to engage in intense legal battles with the National Assembly, based on allegations of election fraud and claims regarding the actions of the major opposition party, as indicated in a public statement released on the 12th of last month.
According to the legal community and the presidential office as of the 13th, President Yoon’s legal team intends to focus their arguments on the reasoning behind the declaration, maintenance, and termination of martial law during the second scheduled hearing on the 16th. President Yoon, citing safety concerns, has stated that he will not attend the first hearing on the 14th, which is anticipated to delay proceedings. However, in the second hearing, key issues such as the legality of martial law are expected to be actively disputed.
In a previous public statement on December 12th, President Yoon described martial law as an emergency measure taken to alert the public to the current crisis. He also indicated that suspicions of election fraud by the Central Election Commission were among the reasons for declaring martial law, pointing to more serious undisclosed issues underlying this decision.
President Yoon’s legal team is anticipated to focus their arguments on the evidence supporting the claims of election fraud, while also asserting that the declaration of martial law was a necessary warning against the actions of the opposition party. Meanwhile, the National Assembly contends that the declaration of martial law constitutes a significant violation of the Constitution and laws justifying President Yoon’s removal. They argue that the martial law declaration does not meet the criteria for a national emergency akin to war or rebellion and that the first proclamation limiting political activities was unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the National Assembly is expected to actively argue against the deployment of armed forces to the National Assembly and the Central Election Commission, as well as the attempted capture of politicians on charges of being caught in the act. At an afternoon briefing, a spokesperson from the Constitutional Court stated that, following Article 52, Clause 1 of the Constitutional Court Act, if a party is absent, the hearing will be postponed to the next date. From the second date, the hearings will proceed in accordance with Clause 2 of Article 52, reviewing the details of the charges, and preparing arguments.
The Constitutional Court is expected to closely scrutinize the credibility of the election fraud allegations and assess whether declaring martial law on such grounds is warranted during the second hearing.