How the Constitutional Court is deciding on the president’s future

South Korea’s impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol, left, attends a hearing of his impeachment trial at the Constitutional Court in Seoul, yesterday

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol is putting up a desperate fight for his political life at Seoul’s Constitutional Court after being impeached and arrested for his short-lived imposition of martial law last year. After weeks of hearings, the court is nearing a decision on whether to formally remove him from office.

Yoon’s legal saga, which also includes a separate criminal indictment on rebellion charges, has become a stress test for the country’s democracy, which has been challenged by deepening political polarization and distrust.

Yoon’s conservative supporters rioted at a Seoul court that authorized his arrest; his lawyers and ruling party have openly questioned the credibility of courts and law enforcement institutions; and Yoon has continued to express contempt for his liberal rivals, endorsing baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud to justify his ill-fated authoritarian push.

If Yoon is dismissed, that would trigger a presidential by-election that could test voters’ trust in the electoral process, while a decision to reinstate him could fuel further instability if the public see it as unjust.

The Constitutional Court’s ruling, expected by March, will be a crucial moment for South Korea. Here’s a look at how it’s being decided.

How the process works

Under South Korea’s constitution, the National Assembly has the power to impeach presidents but not to remove them from office. After an impeachment, the president’s powers are temporarily suspended and a trial begins at the Constitutional Court. The court has 180 days to either remove Yoon from office or reject the impeachment and restore his powers. If he’s thrown out of office, a national election to choose his successor must be held within 60 days.

The Assembly made specific charges against Yoon when impeaching him — misusing military force, circumventing legal processes to declare a state of emergency, and attempting to disband the legislature — but the court is only required to rule on whether or not he can remain in office. Removing Yoon would need the votes of six of the court’s eight justices.

Was the declaration of martial law legal?

Yoon faces criminal accusations of attempted rebellion over his short-lived declaration of martial law, but the Constitutional Court is focusing on a relatively simple question: whether he had legitimate grounds to declare martial law on Dec. 3.

The constitution limits the exercise of that power to times of war or comparable national emergencies.

Yoon has argued that his martial law decree was necessary to overcome the “anti-state” liberal opposition, which he claims improperly used its legislative majority to block his agenda.

After winning a landslide victory in last year’s legislative elections, the liberal opposition impeached several of Yoon’s key officials and blocked his budget bill. Yoon’s side says those moves created a crisis that required drastic action.

But Yoon’s National Security Director Shin Won-shik told the Constitutional Court on Tuesday that Yoon began floating the idea of using his emergency powers before the general elections in April.

Did Yoon follow legal protocols?

The National Assembly has also said that Yoon sidestepped a constitutional requirement to deliberate in a formal meeting of the Cabinet before declaring martial law.

Yoon called 11 Cabinet members to his office shortly before declaring martial law on late-night television, but most participants, including Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, have said the gathering did not qualify as a meeting and that Yoon unilaterally informed them of his decision rather than inviting deliberation.

The meeting also failed to follow legal procedures required for formal state council meetings: no agenda was proposed, no signatures were collected from participants and no minutes were recorded. Yoon told the court Tuesday that he thought the records could be produced later through electronic approval.

Several top officials, including Han, Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok, and Foreign Minister Cho Tae-yul, said they attempted to talk Yoon out of the decision, citing potential damage to the country’s international reputation and economy.

But Yoon went ahead with the martial law declaration, saying that his “perception of the situation” was different, according to public prosecutors’ criminal indictments of Yoon and his former Defense Minister, Kim Yong Hyun, who played a key role in the events.

Former Interior and Safety Minister Lee Sang-min, one of Yoon’s closest allies, is the only participant who has said the Dec. 3 Cabinet meeting had substance, telling the court on Tuesday that officials engaged in “passionate debates.” Yoon has said that it makes “absolutely no sense to suggest that Cabinet members came to the presidential office just for an informal meeting or to hang out.”

Did Yoon try to disband the legislature?

Finally, the Assembly accused Yoon of attempting to dissolve the legislature, something that is beyond his constitutional powers even under martial law.

A military decree that followed Yoon’s declaration stated that “all political activities are prohibited, including activities of the National Assembly and local councils,” and hundreds of troops were deployed to the National Assembly, including special operation units who broke windows while unsuccessfully attempting to reach the main chamber.

Legislators managed to assemble a quorum in the chamber despite the assault and voted unanimously to lift the state of martial law.

Yoon and his lawyers have maintained that the martial law declaration was intended as a temporary and “peaceful” warning to the liberal opposition, and that he had always planned to respect lawmakers’ will if they voted to lift the measure.

He said the troops were there to maintain order, not to disrupt the legislature.

But the Assembly has pointed to testimonies by some military commanders, who have described a deliberate attempt to seize the legislature that was thwarted by hundreds of civilians and legislative staff who helped lawmakers enter the assembly, and by the troops’ reluctance or refusal to follow Yoon’s orders.

Yoon’s claims have been contradicted by testimony from Kwak Jong-keun, the now-arrested commander of the Army Special Warfare Command. Kwak said the president directly instructed him to have troops pull the lawmakers out, desperate to prevent the 300-member Assembly from gathering the 150 votes necessary to overturn his martial law order. Yoon has denied accusations that he sought to arrest key politicians and election officials.

In addition to surrounding the legislature, hundreds of other troops were sent to National Election Commission offices the same day. Yoon says he was aiming to investigate election fraud allegations, which remain unsubstantiated. KIM TONG-HYUNG, SEOUL, MDT/AP