“Does not meet the constitutional requirements for impeachment”
President’s office reiterates refusal to participate in opposition-initiated ‘hearing’,
Yongsan Presidential Office Building. Provided by the Presidential Office,
,
, ‘On the 16th, the President’s office reaffirmed its refusal to participate in the National Assembly hearing requested by the ruling Democratic Party and some opposition parties on the “Impeachment Petition against President Yoon Seok-yeol,” stating that it does not meet the requirements for impeachment specified in Article 65 of the Constitution. Regarding one of the grounds of the petition, the ‘Kim Geon-hee stock manipulation suspicion incident,’ the President’s office stated that it was an incident that occurred “before the President’s marriage.”‘,
,
, ‘A staff member at the President’s office, in a meeting with reporters at the Yongsan Presidential Office Building on that day, stated, “The President’s office has not compromised on matters that may be unconstitutional. We cannot respond to unconstitutional or illegal hearings.” The staff member explained that the ‘impeachment hearing’ was deemed unconstitutional because it did not meet the requirements of Article 65 of the Constitution, which specifies the impeachment criteria for the President, Prime Minister, and Cabinet members.’,
,
, ‘The staff member stated, “Article 65 of the Constitution allows for impeachment proposal if high-ranking officials violate the Constitution or laws in the performance of their duties, but we can question whether the grounds for impeachment in the petition align with Article 65.” The petition that led to the Democratic Party’s initiative for an ‘impeachment hearing’ includes five allegations of legal violations, such as suspicions of pressure on the investigation into the Marine Private First Class death incident involving President Yoon, and the luxury bag acquisition and stock manipulation suspicion of Mrs. Kim.’,
,
, ‘The President’s office specifically refuted some of the impeachment grounds. Regarding the allegation of stock manipulation by Mrs. Kim, the staff member stated, “This incident occurred before the President’s marriage and cases under investigation or trial are not subject to petitions under the National Assembly Law.” Additionally, in response to the petitioner’s mention of the resumption of loudspeaker broadcasts to North Korea, the office refuted by stating, “That is a presidential decision for national security, and it is not a ground for impeachment.”\n’