April 27, 2024

• 

[THE INVESTOR] In making the first-ever decision to impeach an incumbent state leader, the Constitutional Court focused primarily on figuring out whether Park Geun-hye, now an ousted former president, colluded with  her confidante Choi Soon-sil to engage in corruption.

Its judgment was that Park’s wrongdoings -- ranging from leaking confidential state documents and complicity in Choi’s crimes to noncooperation with investigation -- were reasons enough to immediately expel her from power.

The judiciary, however, took a passive approach to Park’s other charges, especially with regards to the controversy that she neglected her duty as state leader on the day of the Sewol ferry sinking tragedy back in 2014.

“The negative aftermath of the president’s acts is so grave that the benefits of her expulsion are overwhelmingly greater (than the possible social turbulence that may follow her ouster),” said acting Chief Justice Lee Jung-mi, in delivering the court’s written sentence Friday.

The nation’s top court unanimously ruled on the day that Park should be expelled from her elected post, upholding the impeachment resolution filed by the National Assembly late last year.

“Park’s breach of the Constitution and of the law is a betrayal to the people’s trust and therefore may not be tolerated in terms of constitutional protection,” the presiding justice said.

The court’s announcement came after it looked into the allegations that Park allowed her longtime friend Choi Soon-sil -- now renamed as Choi Seo-won -- to meddle in state affairs and make illicit profits by using her high-profile connections.

By ordering civil servants and presidential officials to assist in Choi’s businesses, Park abused her presidential status and powers, and therefore violated the Constitution, as well as the Civil Service Act and the Public Servants’ Ethics Act, according to the court.

Her assistance in extorting funds from local conglomerates to establish two dubious foundations controlled by Choi infringed on the corresponding companies’ freedom of business management, the acting chief justice added.

In short, the eight-member court acknowledged most of Park’s charges related to her confidante. Choi is currently under trial over her criminal charges, along with a number of former presidential aides.

The court’s announcement also came in line with the special prosecutor team’s conclusion earlier to book Park as accomplice to Choi’s bribery and over her abuse of power. The decision of the court, however, holds no direct influence on the state prosecutors’ ongoing investigation.

“Not only did Park thoroughly conceal Choi’s meddling in state affairs, but she also consistently denied the given allegations and lashed out at those who raised suspicions, thus making it difficult for the legislation and the media to keep a monitoring watch (on state affairs),” Lee said.

Such illicit acts by the former president were in clear breach of representative democracy and the rule of law, the court asserted, before announcing Park’s expulsion.

But in contrast to its firm stance over the collusion between Park and Choi, the court took a prudent approach to other charges.

The most controversial among the dismissed agendas was Park’s alleged negligence of duty as state chief on April 16 2014, the day of the Sewol ferry tragedy.

Park had come under fire for supposedly staying in her residence, instead of the presidential office building, on the day of the accident which left more than 300 dead or missing.

While her absence on that day was never fully explained to the skeptical public, Park constantly denied suggestions that she had gotten her hair done and underwent cosmetic surgeries during those mystery seven hours.

“Park was under the responsibility to properly exercise her rights so that the state may fully protect the people’s lives and physical safety,” Lee said in the ruling.

“But this does not directly obligate her to directly participate in rescue activities in emergency situations.”

Also, a president’s constitutional duty to perform the given role “in good faith” is too abstract a reason to justify an impeachment, she added.

“As tragic as the Sewol accident was, Park’s performance of duty on that day is not subject to the impeachment judgment.”

But two of the justices, while agreeing that the issue was not reason for impeachment, added some words about Park’s response to the tragedy.

“If Park had made more effort, she would have been able to grasp the seriousness of the Sewol accident by 10 a.m. at the latest,” said Kim Yi-soo and Lee Jin-sung in a concurring opinion.

“Her claim that she only realized the full gravity of the situation at 3 p.m. is unacceptable.”

The fact that she had continued to stay in her residence for several more hours after receiving the initial report shows that Park did not pay due attention to the case, they claimed.

The court also dismissed the former state chief’s alleged abuse of rights to appoint public servants and infringement upon the freedom of the media, citing the lack of evidence.

The Constitutional Court has often been seen as conservative in its key decisions, hesitating to make radical social changes by overturning conventional systems.

There had been concerns that the court might have tilted toward the conservative state chief as five of the eight-member bench were classified as right-leaning.

Observers had pointed out that a conservative propensity had led the court to agree on dissolving the Unified Progressive Party in 2014, acknowledging its pro-North Korea doctrine and conspiracy to overthrow the South Korean administration.

However, the court reached a rare unanimity in ruling Park out of power, a decision which is to call for an earlier-than-elected presidential election within the next 60 days. Pundits say that May 9 is a plausible date.

By Bae Hyun-jung/The Korea Herald (tellme@heraldcorp.com)