Former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol’s representatives filed a constitutional complaint against the proposed Insurrection Special Prosecutor Law at the Constitutional Court on March 6. The move follows the rejection of a preliminary review request submitted on behalf of the bill’s sponsor.
Background on the Dispute
Yoon’s team initially sought a preliminary constitutional review on January 5 at the National Assembly’s Legislation and Judiciary Subcommittee. The request targeted the law’s sponsor provisions amid concerns over its impact on ongoing cases.
This action stemmed from a first-instance ruling in September last year by Seoul Central District Court’s Criminal Division 35, under Presiding Judge Baek Dae-hyun, in the Choi Bo interference case. The court dismissed the preliminary request in January, applying a five-year statute of limitations.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, Yoon’s representatives bypassed further delays and lodged the direct complaint at the Constitutional Court.
Key Constitutional Concerns
The complaint highlights multiple violations, including:
- Broad investigative scope under Article 2, Clause 1
- Special prosecutor appointment rules in Article 3
- Timing of direct searches and presidential record leaks in Article 6, Clauses 4
- Internal branch office oversight in Articles 11 Clauses 4, 5, and 7
- Special prosecutor’s online briefings under Article 13
- Friday applicant handling protocols in Article 25
Statements from Yoon’s Representatives
A spokesperson for former President Yoon emphasized the law’s flaws, stating, “The legislation’s overly inclusive and ambiguous language enables the special prosecutor to target extensive cases through subjective ideological judgments, allowing investigations into virtually any desired matter.”
The spokesperson continued, “Even with online briefings on special prosecutor activities, reasonable steps ensure minimal disruption to active trials. Updates flow through branch channels, upholding public access to information.”
They added, “Such measures do not hinder the sponsor’s review process. Instead, independent assessments unify court decisions, integrating prosecution records for consistent rulings.”
