April 19, 2024
Economy
[IMPEACHMENT] Court to face hurdles in impeachment witness questioning
[THE INVESTOR] For the Constitutional Court, the main challenge in judging President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment is questioning the dozens of listed witnesses and confirming the suggested allegations within due time, especially as key figures are either denying the charges or avoiding the trial altogether.
The fundamental cause of this deadlock is that Park, as well as her disputed confidante Choi Soon-sil who stands at the core of the extensive corruption scandal, has utterly denied the grounds brought forward against her.
Only after confirming the disputed facts, which constitute the reasons of impeachment, may the top court move on to its legal judgment process and decide whether or not to oust the president as demanded by the legislature.
The court on Thursday held its first witness interrogation for the impeachment trial, but made slow progress on fact-finding, mostly due to the absence of three pivotal figures -- two former senior Cheong Wa Dae officials and Park herself.
Lee Jae-man and Ahn Bong-geun, two of the three presidential secretaries dubbed the “doorknob trio” due to their exclusive connection to the reclusive Park, continued to remain in hiding, making no response to the court summoning.
The embattled Park did not attend the proceedings either, only speaking through her lawyers, who called for more rigorous proof to justify the elected president’s removal from power.
Under Clause 84 of the nation’s Constitution, an incumbent president may not be charged with a criminal offense except for insurrection or treason. Though confusion exists on whether a suspended president is also subject to such an exemption, it is being widely speculated that Park will not show up during the impeachment trial process.
Observers point out that the Constitutional Court, whose main function is to judge the constitutional conformity of laws and administrative measures, will rush through the normative process once the fact-finding is done.
But the problem is that Park has been refuting all of the circumstances the National Assembly listed in the impeachment statement, much in contrast to her predecessor in impeachment, former President Roh Moo-hyun.
The late liberal president, when facing his impeachment trial in 2004 over an alleged breach of political neutrality, acknowledged the facts listed in his impeachment resolution, allowing the court to jump to its normative judgment.
Since the Choi scandal broke out in late October last year, President Park has delivered three official addresses to the nation, in which she mostly claimed innocence over Choi’s alleged influence-peddling acts. In an unheralded press meeting held recently on New Year’s Day, she once again complained of injustice and denied the charges, especially her involvement in the alleged bribery allegations.
Considering such circumstances, it is highly likely that Park’s legal team will continue to raise doubts on the credibility of the evidence submitted by prosecutors and lawmakers, as well as that of the written testimonies that are unfavorable for Park.
Should the plaintiff -- the parliamentary impeachment committee -- and the defendant plunge into a lengthy cross-examination process on each other’s key witnesses, the court ruling will inevitably face a delay, which will in turn put off the timeline for the next presidential election.
The deadline for the Constitutional Court to finalize its stance on impeachment is six months from the submission of the resolution, which will be in early June. The top court, however, has been hinting at speeding up its process, so as to minimize the vacuum in state affairs.
The process for the late Roh took about two months.
By Bae Hyun-jung/The Korea Herald (tellme@heraldcorp.com)
The fundamental cause of this deadlock is that Park, as well as her disputed confidante Choi Soon-sil who stands at the core of the extensive corruption scandal, has utterly denied the grounds brought forward against her.
Only after confirming the disputed facts, which constitute the reasons of impeachment, may the top court move on to its legal judgment process and decide whether or not to oust the president as demanded by the legislature.
The court on Thursday held its first witness interrogation for the impeachment trial, but made slow progress on fact-finding, mostly due to the absence of three pivotal figures -- two former senior Cheong Wa Dae officials and Park herself.
Lee Jae-man and Ahn Bong-geun, two of the three presidential secretaries dubbed the “doorknob trio” due to their exclusive connection to the reclusive Park, continued to remain in hiding, making no response to the court summoning.
The embattled Park did not attend the proceedings either, only speaking through her lawyers, who called for more rigorous proof to justify the elected president’s removal from power.
Under Clause 84 of the nation’s Constitution, an incumbent president may not be charged with a criminal offense except for insurrection or treason. Though confusion exists on whether a suspended president is also subject to such an exemption, it is being widely speculated that Park will not show up during the impeachment trial process.
Observers point out that the Constitutional Court, whose main function is to judge the constitutional conformity of laws and administrative measures, will rush through the normative process once the fact-finding is done.
But the problem is that Park has been refuting all of the circumstances the National Assembly listed in the impeachment statement, much in contrast to her predecessor in impeachment, former President Roh Moo-hyun.
The late liberal president, when facing his impeachment trial in 2004 over an alleged breach of political neutrality, acknowledged the facts listed in his impeachment resolution, allowing the court to jump to its normative judgment.
Since the Choi scandal broke out in late October last year, President Park has delivered three official addresses to the nation, in which she mostly claimed innocence over Choi’s alleged influence-peddling acts. In an unheralded press meeting held recently on New Year’s Day, she once again complained of injustice and denied the charges, especially her involvement in the alleged bribery allegations.
Considering such circumstances, it is highly likely that Park’s legal team will continue to raise doubts on the credibility of the evidence submitted by prosecutors and lawmakers, as well as that of the written testimonies that are unfavorable for Park.
Should the plaintiff -- the parliamentary impeachment committee -- and the defendant plunge into a lengthy cross-examination process on each other’s key witnesses, the court ruling will inevitably face a delay, which will in turn put off the timeline for the next presidential election.
The deadline for the Constitutional Court to finalize its stance on impeachment is six months from the submission of the resolution, which will be in early June. The top court, however, has been hinting at speeding up its process, so as to minimize the vacuum in state affairs.
The process for the late Roh took about two months.
By Bae Hyun-jung/The Korea Herald (tellme@heraldcorp.com)
