[Anchor]
As you have seen, President Yoon’s side is raising issues by citing legal grounds from the Constitutional Court to investigative bodies and courts. They are accused of trying to position the president above the law by stalling the impeachment trial and evading investigation. Let’s discuss this with our correspondent.
Reporter Park Byeong-hyun, President Yoon’s side has requested the Supreme Court to exclude and discipline the judge who issued the arrest warrant. Is it common to contest an issue to this extent?
[Reporter]
Initially, President Yoon’s lawyer claimed the investigative agency has no authority, then the court has no jurisdiction, and now they are challenging the judge’s authority.
In our country’s judicial system, it’s standard practice to execute once the court issues a warrant.
Since there’s no immediate way to avoid execution, they are creating a public debate by questioning the various procedures and authorities.
If there is a perceived problem, they should file an appeal or dispute it in the main trial.
The courts have specially designated judges, who are experienced chief judges, to handle warrants.
Issuing a warrant restricts the liberty protected by the constitution.
Therefore, it’s seen as a system created to make authoritative decisions through ‘judges who exclusively handle warrants.’
Despite this judicial system, President Yoon’s side is dealing with it by filing an injunction with the Constitutional Court.
Prior to the impeachment trial, they questioned the qualification of the Constitutional Court and challenged the investigative authority in the treason investigation, and now they are mentioning the Supreme Court.
[Anchor]
On the other hand, hasn’t the investigative agency emphasized the ‘due process’ multiple times?
[Reporter]
It’s to avoid giving traction to President Yoon’s side.
Repeated emphasis on avoiding physical confrontation is for this reason.
If a clash occurs during the execution of the arrest warrant, it could provide grounds for President Yoon’s side, who claims the warrant itself is unlawful, to halt execution.
Therefore, it has been stressed that even if a conflict arises, investigative personnel should not give any cause.
This is why the head of the investigative agency stated, “We will strictly enforce the law while maintaining decorum.”
[Anchor]
The most pressing question is when the investigative agency will act, and when will they execute the arrest warrant?
[Reporter]
Since the warrant was issued yesterday, they could proceed at any time.
The arrest warrant is valid until midnight on the 6th.
Excluding the weekend, only tomorrow, the day after, and the deadline day on the 6th remain.
It’s highly likely that the warrant will be executed during this period.
Protests on the weekend are a variable.
There is often a large gathering for and against impeachment on Saturdays.
If executed on this day, there might be a clash with the protestors.
Police units may be deployed to protect the investigative agency personnel.
Even the head of the investigative agency, Oh Dong-woon, expressed a desire to avoid excessive cheering or opposition and mentioned receiving cooperation from the police.
[Anchor]
Issuing an arrest warrant against a sitting president is unprecedented. If it’s actually executed, how will it proceed?
[Reporter]
The president will be shown the arrest warrant, and the charges will be read out.
An explanation of the reason for the arrest will also be provided.
The Miranda rights, including the right to appoint a lawyer and to remain silent, will be announced.
The 48-hour detention period will start once they begin traveling together.
This is the time during which the investigative agency must decide whether to apply for a detention warrant.
[Anchor]
What if they fail to execute it within the deadline on the 6th?
[Reporter]
There are mainly two options.
They can reapply for the arrest warrant or apply for a detention warrant.
Multiple attempts at execution until the 6th can help build a case for reapplication.
However, if the execution is continuously obstructed, they might ultimately have to use this option.
It’s unlikely that a former prosecutor general, touted as a top legal expert, is unaware of this.
There are unavoidable criticisms of using a blatant delay strategy.