Unfortunately, there seems to be no end in sight to the Constitutional Court’s erratic behavior. It is openly flouting its own guidelines and eroding legal coherence.
Article 32 of the Constitutional Court Act explicitly prohibits the court from requesting records from investigative institutions related to the same trial or investigation. Yet, the Constitutional Court has disregarded this provision, obtaining documents from the prosecutor’s office, the police, and the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials. What’s more, despite witness testimony at the Constitutional Court contradicting their previous statements to the prosecution, the Court has chosen to accept the prosecution’s indictments as evidence. This runs counter to fundamental legal principles, where court testimony holds greater weight than prosecutorial statements. The Court, however, appears to place more trust in the prosecution’s narrative.
Article 40 of the Constitutional Court Act stipulates that the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to impeachment trials in the absence of special provisions. But the Constitutional Court has likewise disregarded even the most basic procedural norms by unilaterally setting trial dates and procedures without adhering to established protocols. When Yoon's defense team filed an objection motion, citing these procedural violations, the Constitutional Court dismissed it without providing a clear explanation.
Compared to the impeachment trial of former President Park Geun-hye, the proceedings against President Yoon have been highly partisan and rushed. The Constitutional Court has only called nine of the 34 witnesses Yoon's defense team requested, and the court now appears on track to deliver a verdict by early March—much faster than the late March-early April timeline many legal experts had initially predicted. In contrast, Park Geun-hye's impeachment trial lasted 91 days, spanning 17 sessions before reaching a decision.
The Constitutional Court's arbitrary prioritization of certain cases has sparked yet another controversy. On February 3, the court was set to rule on the constitutionality of Acting President Choi Sang-mok's decision not to nominate Ma Eun-hyuk as a Constitutional Court justice. Yet just two hours before the ruling was due, the court abruptly postponed the decision after harsh criticism from the ruling party and the conservative voters.
