Impeachment

Impeachment (탄핵/彈劾) is a constitutional process in which a high-ranking official, including the President, the Prime Minister, judges and other officials with a guaranteed status, is accused of unlawful activity, and removed from office as well as other punishment.

It's because the President and other high ranking officials have really much influence upon common people, and they cannot be removed from such influential position if there were not any democratic election nor impeachment based on the Constitution.

Korea has witnessed several cases on impeachment as explained below.

Key words
impeachment, Constitution, Constitutional Court, public official

Constitutional Ground
The Constitution provides for the process of impeachment as follows:
 * First, is it true that anyone of the following high-ranking public officials has violated the Constitution or other statutes in the performance of the official duties - the President, the Prime Minister, members of the State Council, heads of Executive Ministries, Justices of the Constitutional Court, judges, members of the National Election Commission, the Chairman and members of the Board of Audit and Inspection, and other public officials designated by statutes?
 * Second, could the National Assembly pass motions for his/her impeachment?
 * Third, is the motion for impeachment proposed by one third or more of the total members of the National Assembly?
 * Fourth, does it require a concurrence of a majority of the total members of the National Assembly for passage?
 * In case of the motion for the impeachment of the President, is the motion for impeachment proposed by a majority of the total members of the National Assembly and approved by two thirds or more of the total members of the National Assembly?


 * If yes to all of the above questions, then the President other high-ranking officials against whom a motion for impeachment has been passed shall be suspended from exercising his power until the impeachment has been adjudicated.
 * A decision on impeachment shall not extend further than removal from public office: Provided, that it shall not exempt the person impeached from civil or criminal liability.

Roh Moo-hyun Case
On March 12, 2004, the opposition parties overcame the intervention of the ruling party and proposed the motion for impeachment of President Roh Moo-hyun to the National Assembly on ground that the following wrong doings of the President violated the Constitution and the Public Officials Election Act.
 * Even though the President is a "public official" within the meaning of Article 9 of the Act on the Election of Public Officials and the Prevention of Election Malpractices (hereinafter the "Public Officials Election Act"), the statements of the President expressing support for a particular political party at press conferences violate the obligation of political neutrality by public officials.
 * The President could not satisfy the obligation to abide by and preserve the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court held on the following grounds:
 * [The] political neutrality at the election is a basic obligation owed by all public officials of the executive branch and of the judiciary. Furthermore, since the President bears the obligation to oversee and manage a fair electoral process as the head of the executive branch, the President is, as a matter of course, a 'public official' within the meaning of Article 9 of the Public Officials Election Act.
 * The president's statements toward the entire public at press conferences in support of a particular political party made by taking advantage of the political significance and influence of the office of the President, when political neutrality of public officials is required more than ever before as general elections approach, were in violation of the neutrality obligation concerning elections as acts unjustly influencing the elections and thereby affecting the outcome of the elections by taking advantage of the status of the President.
 * Article 58(1) of the Public Officials Election Act makes it a prerequisite for the electoral campaign 'whether or not a candidate can be specified,' by defining the concept of 'electoral campaign' adopting the standard of 'being elected.' When the statements at issue in this case were made on February 18, 2004 and February 24, 2004, the party-endorsed candidates had not yet been determined. Therefore, the statements in support of a particular political party when the party-endorsed candidates were not yet specified did not constitute an electoral campaign.
 * Furthermore, considering that the president's statements at issue herein were neither actively made nor premeditated as such statements were made in the form of the President's response to questions posed by the reporters at press conferences, neither was there an active or premeditated element to be found in the President's statements, nor, as a result, a purposeful intention sufficient to find the nature of a political campaign. Therefore, the respondent's statements cannot be deemed as active and intended electoral campaign activities committed with an intention to have a particular candidate or certain identifiable candidates win or lose the election.
 * The 'obligation to abide by and protect the Constitution' of the President set forth in Articles 66(2) and 69 of the Constitution is the constitutional manifestation that specifies the constitutional principle of government by the rule of law in relation to the President's performance of official duties. While the 'obligation to abide by and protect the Constitution' is a norm derived from the principle of government by the rule of law, the Constitution repeatedly emphasizes such obligation of the President in Articles 66(2) and 69, considering the significance of the status of the President as the head of the state and the chief of the executive branch. Under the spirit of the Constitution as such, the President is the 'symbolic existence personifying the rule of law and the observance of law' toward the entire public.

The Constitutional Court reached a sub-conclusion that the President's statements at the press conference with six news media organizations in the Seoul-Incheon region on February 18, 2004 and the statements at the press conference with the Korean Network Reporters' Club on February 24, 2004 were in violation of the neutrality obligation owed by public officials.

Also it was decided that the act of the President in response to the National Election Commission's March 4, 2004 decision that found a breach of election law by the President was in violation of the President's obligation to protect the Constitution as not in conformity with the principle of the rule of law. The act of the President on October 13, 2003 that proposed a confidence referendum violated the obligation to protect the Constitution as not in conformity with Article 72 of the Constitution.

Finally, however, the Constitutional Court concluded that the petition for impeachment adjudication is rejected as the number of the Justices required to remove the President from office under Article 23(2) of the Constitutional Court Act has not been met.

By its decision on May 14, 2004 to reject the petition for impeachment adjudication, the Constitutional Court brought an end to the political and legal debates for and against the impeachment of the President that lasted for over two months, and President Roh Moo-hyun thereby returned to his office in sixty-three days from suspension of presidential authority and power.

Through this case, the public newly recognized that even the President is subject to possible removal from office for violating the Constitution and statutes, and yet, the removal process should also proceed pursuant to the Constitution and statutes. In this regard, it is the analysis within the legal profession that the 'impeachment adjudication of the President served as a precious opportunity for the public to learn the importance of the rule of law and democracy.'

Constitutional Custom Decision
In October, 2004, the Constitutional Court held that President Roh's bill to relocate the Capital City to Chungcheong Province, which was enacted to keep his election pledges, unconstitutional because the Special Act is contrary to the "constitutional custom" and lacks the necessary referendum for its amendment.

It's a historical irony that late Roh Moo-hyun's successor, President Lee Myung-bak is often criticized by opposition groups, who now demand the National Assembly to impeach President Lee, on the ground that the Blue House is allegedly involved in the DDoS attack of the Website of the National Election Commission, which was paralized temporarily and could not inform Seoul citizens of voting venues and the current voting rate by hour on October 26, 2011, the by-election day.