Wook Wonsik: "Constitutional Amendment Bill Not Submitted to Plenary... Strong Regret Expressed to People Power Party" (Comprehensive)

Constitutional Amendment Bill Fails to Reach Plenary Session on the 10th
Woo Wonsik: "Made Numerous Proposals... People Power Party Rejected Them"
Song Eonseok: "We Will Block Any Amendment Without Bipartisan Agreement"

Speaker of the National Assembly Woo Won-shik did not submit the constitutional amendment proposal to the plenary session of the National Assembly on May 8, 2026. Addressing the People Power Party, which had announced a filibuster (unlimited debate) in response to the submission of the amendment, he stated, "I cannot help but express my strong regret toward the People Power Party, which has thwarted the constitutional amendment for the first time in 39 years," adding, "I hope you feel ashamed and afraid." On the other hand, the People Power Party countered, "A constitutional amendment requires bipartisan agreement" and protested, asking, "Are you trying to turn the Constitution into a patchwork?"

Woo Won-shik, Speaker of the National Assembly, criticized the People Power Party on the 8th in the plenary session of the National Assembly for not submitting a constitutional amendment proposal and applying for a filibuster (unlimited debate). Photo by Yonhap News Agency

Speaker Woo: "People Power Party has disregarded its responsibility as a public party... I am outraged"

Speaker Woo stated at the plenary session held that afternoon, "Yesterday, the People Power Party invalidated the vote by not participating, and today they have announced an unlimited debate, so I will not submit the constitutional amendment proposal any further," declaring, "With this, the procedure ends today."

He continued, "I convened the plenary session once again today to prevent the constitutional amendment from being annulled after 39 years," and explained, "I earnestly requested the People Power Party to face public sentiment and participate in the process after deeper consideration." He added, "But seeing them respond with a filibuster, I have concluded that further proceedings are pointless."

Speaker Woo also pointed out, "Last year, the People Power Party officially announced its intention to actively include the May 18 Democratization Movement in the preamble to the Constitution, and said they would reflect on the 12·3 Martial Law; not to mention their commitment to regional balanced development." He continued, "They call this a rushed amendment, but the Speaker has made numerous proposals over time." He criticized, "It is the People Power Party that rejected and did not respond every time."

He further stated, "The People Power Party has not only thrown away a hard-won opportunity for constitutional amendment, but has also shirked its responsibility as a public party to fulfill its promises to the people." He continued, "How can you impose a filibuster on an amendment that would make illegal martial law impossible, and still not cut ties with former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was sentenced to life as the ringleader of insurrection? Do you really think this will dispel public doubts and criticism?"

Speaker Woo emphasized, "This result must not solidify the perception that constitutional amendment is impossible," and added, "Now the National Assembly must once again take responsibility." He requested, "Although my repeated requests for a special committee on constitutional amendment have failed in the past, I urge that it be formed in the latter half of the term." He also called on both parties to "present a clear constitutional amendment timeline to the public with a responsible attitude."

Meanwhile, Speaker Woo also withheld 50 livelihood bills that were to be submitted along with the constitutional amendment proposal that day. In response to the People Power Party's announced plan to filibuster these bills as well, he asked, "Do you not care about the people who desperately hope for the passage of these bills?" He lamented, "It is infuriating to see such obstructionist behavior that disrupts even the basic principle of timely processing necessary bills to reduce public inconvenience." Speaker Woo was seen in tears after adjourning the plenary session.

The scene of the National Assembly plenary session held on the 8th. Photo by Yonhap News Agency

Song Eon-seok: "It was not an invalid vote, but a rejection... Is this just for local elections?"

The People Power Party expressed its regret. Song Eon-seok, the party's floor leader, told reporters after the end of the plenary session, "In order to properly reflect the values of liberal democracy in the history of the Republic of Korea in the Constitution, we must engage in rigorous debate and discussion. That is the true meaning of constitutional amendment." He criticized, "It is entirely wrong to simply approach this as a matter of for or against, especially when the constitutional amendment proposal was introduced unilaterally and then just put to a simple vote among themselves."

Song further stated, "Yesterday, as soon as the constitutional amendment proposal was rejected, Speaker Woo convened another plenary session today without bipartisan agreement," and added, "This was a very one-sided and highly emotional plenary session." He continued, "Speaker Woo claimed the vote was invalid, but it was our party's motion to dismiss Minister of Unification Jeong Dong-yeong that was ruled invalid due to lack of quorum. Yesterday's vote was clearly a rejection."

Song emphasized, "A majority of all lawmakers attended yesterday's plenary session, so we exceeded the quorum for a decision." He explained, "But the number of affirmative votes did not reach two-thirds of the total lawmakers, so there were not enough votes for approval." He pointed out, "Even considering the resubmission of a rejected bill today, the principle of 'no resubmission of the same bill in the same session' was violated."

Song also remarked, "When even the Speaker, who is the head of the National Assembly that makes the Constitution and laws, does not abide by the Constitution, I cannot understand why he is pushing for constitutional amendment. I urge him to abide by the current Constitution first." He questioned, "Wasn't it the intention of Speaker Woo and the ruling party to frame us as a party defending martial law and distorting the history of the 5·18 Democratization Movement, to gain an advantage in the upcoming local elections?"

Song concluded, "We will resolutely block any undemocratic constitutional amendment without bipartisan agreement together with the people," and declared, "History will clearly judge the unilateral push for constitutional amendment as an attempt at dictatorship." He added, "The path the Democratic Party is taking is one toward dictatorship, insurrection, and anti-liberal democracy."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.