1. Constitutional Framework of Impeachment in Korea

(a) Article 65 – Impeachment Power

• The National Assembly may impeach:
  • President
  • Prime Minister
  • Ministers and other high officials
• Grounds: Violation of the Constitution or other laws

(b) Role of the Constitutional Court

• The Court decides whether to:
  • Uphold impeachment (removal from office)
  • Dismiss impeachment (official reinstated)

Thus, impeachment is a hybrid process:

• Political accusation
• Judicial determination

2. Nature of Impeachment Jurisdiction

The Court has clarified that impeachment is:

• Not criminal punishment
• A constitutional accountability mechanism

Key focus:

• Protection of constitutional order
• Maintenance of public trust

3. Key Principles Developed by the Court

(a) Doctrine of “Grave Violation”

Not every legal violation leads to removal. The Court requires:

• Serious breach of law
• Harm to constitutional order

(b) Principle of Proportionality

The Court weighs:

• Gravity of misconduct
• Impact on democracy
• Consequences of removal

(c) Protection of Democratic Stability

Removal of a President is treated as an exceptional measure, used only when necessary.

(d) Judicial Independence from Politics

The Court does not simply follow the National Assembly—it conducts an independent constitutional review.

4. Major Constitutional Court Cases (Korea)

1. Roh Moo-hyun Impeachment Case

Facts:

President Roh Moo-hyun was impeached for:

• Violating election neutrality laws
• Alleged incompetence

Judgment:

• Court rejected impeachment

Principle:

• Violations must be grave and substantial
• Minor legal breaches do not justify removal

2. Park Geun-hye Impeachment Case

Facts:

President Park Geun-hye was accused of:

• Abuse of power
• Corruption (involving confidante Choi Soon-sil)

Judgment:

• Court upheld impeachment (8–0 decision)

Principle:

• Abuse of presidential power and violation of public trust = grave constitutional violation

3. Prime Minister Han Myeong-sook Impeachment Review (related constitutional discussions)

Significance:

• Clarified limits of impeachment for executive officials
• Emphasized legal accountability vs political disagreement

4. Minister of Interior Impeachment Case

Significance:

• Court examined whether administrative failures justify impeachment
• Held that mere policy failure ≠ constitutional violation

5. Prosecutor General Impeachment Review

Significance:

• Addressed independence of prosecutorial offices
• Emphasized institutional integrity and due process

6. Judge Impeachment Case (Lim Seong-geun)

Facts:

A judge was impeached for judicial interference.

Judgment:

• Case dismissed due to expiration of tenure, but Court clarified standards.

Principle:

• Impeachment applies even to judiciary
• Focus on constitutional accountability and judicial independence

5. Comparative Global Perspective

(a) Korea vs United States

• Korea: Judicial final decision by Constitutional Court
• USA: Senate decides (political process)

(b) Korea vs Germany

• Both involve constitutional courts
• Korea applies more active proportionality review

(c) Korea vs India

• India: No judicial review of impeachment outcome
• Korea: Strong judicial control ensures fairness

6. Doctrinal Contributions to Global Constitutional Law

The Korean Constitutional Court has contributed:

(1) “Grave Violation Test”

Only serious constitutional breaches justify removal.

(2) Judicialization of Impeachment

Transforms impeachment into a legal-constitutional process, not purely political.

(3) Protection of Democratic Legitimacy

Prevents misuse of impeachment for political rivalry.

(4) Integration of Proportionality

Balances misconduct with consequences of removal.

7. Challenges and Criticism

• Risk of judicial overreach
• Political pressure on judges
• Difficulty in defining “grave violation”
• Tension between democracy and judicial control

8. Conclusion

The Constitutional Court of Korea has created a globally influential model of impeachment jurisprudence by ensuring that:

• Impeachment is not a political weapon
• Removal from office requires serious constitutional wrongdoing
• Courts act as guardians of democratic order and due process

The Korean model represents a balanced constitutional approach, where:

“Democratic accountability is enforced through judicially controlled constitutional standards.”