157 Minutes of President Yoon Ending with a 'Constitutional Amendment Proposal' from 'Self-Defense'

by Lim Chulyoung

by Yeom Dayeon

by Ku Chaeeun

by Kwak Minjae

Published 26 Feb.2025 10:36(KST)

Updated 17 Mar.2025 16:07(KST)

157 Minutes of Yoon:
"Martial Law as a Warning, Nothing Actually Happened"
Appeared Eight Times, Denied All Impeachment Issues
Announced Plan to Resume Presidential Duties in Final Statement

President Yoon Suk-yeol appeared at the final hearing of the Constitutional Court's impeachment trial on the 25th and stated, "I will not be obsessed with the remaining term and will consider constitutional amendment and political reform as my last mission, doing my best to improve the '87 system'." He indicated that if the Constitutional Court dismisses the impeachment motion, he will push for a constitutional amendment to shorten the term. President Yoon, who attended the impeachment trial in person for the first time in constitutional history and conducted direct witness examinations, read a prepared 77-page manuscript continuously for 67 minutes that day. He expressed his intention to promote constitutional amendment and to continue performing the presidential duties, moving beyond the argument of the 'legitimacy' of the emergency martial law proclamation.

President Yoon Suk-yeol is delivering his final statement at the 11th hearing of his impeachment trial held at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul on February 25, 2025. Photo by the Constitutional Court

President Yoon opened by saying, "I am sorry and grateful to the people," and argued that the martial law was a 'warning order.' He claimed that it was only formally 'martial law' but substantively a 'public appeal,' and that the opposition party incited the public and framed it as a 'rebellion.'

President Yoon also insisted that the opposition party was a rebellious faction colluding with North Korea and claimed a conspiracy theory of election fraud due to North Korea's interference. He said, "The overwhelmingly powerful opposition party with 190 seats stands on the side of North Korea, China, and Russia," and added, "There is also evidence that (anti-state forces) intervened in the election under North Korea's instructions." In his final argument, President Yoon mentioned 'opposition party' 48 times, 'spy' 25 times, and the words 'North Korea' and 'constitutional amendment' 15 and 6 times respectively.

Eight Appearances at the Constitutional Court... 157 Minutes of Self-Defense

President Yoon first appeared in the Constitutional Court's courtroom during the third hearing on the 21st of last month. He stated, "Since I grew up, especially during my public service career, I have firmly held the belief in liberal democracy," and consistently denied all issues in the impeachment trial, including the unconstitutionality and illegality of the emergency martial law and obstruction of parliamentary activities.

President Yoon appeared eight times at the Constitutional Court from the third to the last eleventh hearing, and the total time spent on witness examination and statement was 157 minutes (2 hours and 37 minutes). While directly questioning witnesses on the stand, he spent time explaining the drafting of 'Martial Law Proclamation No. 1' and raised his voice against witnesses who gave unfavorable testimony, calling it a "rebellion frame and impeachment plot."

157 Minutes of President Yoon Ending with a 'Constitutional Amendment Proposal' from 'Self-Defense'

"Moonlight Reflection on the Lake" and "Please Judge Based on Common Sense"

President Yoon has repeatedly argued that the martial law was a warning to 'enlighten' the people and that nothing actually happened. He consistently mentioned that the declaration of martial law was a legitimate exercise of presidential authority due to the 'national emergency' caused by the opposition party's impeachment and budget cuts.

In the fifth hearing, President Yoon said, "Looking at this case, nothing actually happened, but talking about whether orders were given or received felt like chasing the moonlight reflection on a lake." In his final statement, he again mentioned the 'moonlight reflected on the lake.' He emphasized that martial law was lifted by the National Assembly two hours after its effect took place and actively refuted the impeachment reason that he ordered to pull out lawmakers and block the National Assembly's resolution to lift martial law.

President Yoon also said, "Please consider whether it is possible to order lawmakers to be pulled out within any superior-subordinate relationship based on common sense," and "If you base it on common sense, you will understand the substance of the matter," appealing to 'common sense.'

Directly Questioning Kim Yong-hyun and Lee Sang-min While Making Eye Contact

President Yoon also took the lead in direct witness questioning. During the fourth hearing, he directly questioned former Minister of National Defense Kim Yong-hyun, who appeared as a witness, while making eye contact. President Yoon asked, "Since the proclamation had no feasibility but symbolic meaning, you told me to leave it as is. Do you remember?" Kim replied, "I remember now that you mention it." President Yoon nodded intermittently at Kim's remarks.

During the seventh hearing, while listening to testimony from former Minister of the Interior and Safety Lee Sang-min, President Yoon asked questions directly. When Lee continued his testimony related to the Cabinet meeting, President Yoon asked, "I think you are mistaken. You are not saying that the Cabinet meeting minutes were destroyed, right?" Lee immediately replied, "Not at all." This was a question and answer to emphasize that the Cabinet meeting related to martial law was conducted normally. However, President Yoon left during the tenth hearing when Prime Minister Han Duck-soo appeared as a witness, citing that it was "not good for the nation's dignity."

To Kwak Jong-geun and Hong Jang-won: "Impeachment Plot"

On the other hand, President Yoon aggressively confronted witnesses who gave unfavorable testimony. When former First Deputy Director of the National Intelligence Service Hong Jang-won, who wrote the 'arrest list memo,' and former Special Forces Commander Kwak Jong-geun, who testified that the president ordered to pull out lawmakers, appeared as witnesses, he said, "I never used the word 'personnel' as Kwak said to pull out personnel," and claimed that Hong and Kwak were involved in a 'rebellion frame' and 'impeachment plot.'

President Yoon said, "The problem is that Hong connected my phone call with the president's arrest order and claimed it was a rebellion and impeachment plot," and added, "On the day of the emergency martial law, I thought the NIS chief was overseas, so I called Hong, but from the tone, it sounded like he had been drinking. I also enjoy a drink, so I immediately noticed."

Constitutional Court to Deliver Verdict Tomorrow on 'Ma Eun-hyuk Appointment Suspension' Authority Dispute

The Constitutional Court will announce its ruling on the 27th on whether the suspension of the appointment of Ma Eun-hyuk, a candidate for Constitutional Court justice, by Acting Prime Minister and Minister of Economy and Finance Choi Sang-mok was unconstitutional.
According to the legal community on the 25th, the Constitutional Court notified the parties that it will deliver the verdict at 10 a.m. on the 27th on the authority dispute trial filed by National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik against Acting Prime Minister Choi on behalf of the National Assembly. The key issue in the authority dispute trial is whether Acting Prime Minister Choi's failure to appoint three candidates for Constitutional Court justice elected by the National Assembly constitutes an unconstitutional omission. The National Assembly elected candidates Jeong Gye-seon, Ma Eun-hyuk, and Jo Han-chang, but Acting Prime Minister Choi delayed the appointments and only appointed Jeong and Jo on December 31 last year, excluding Ma. In response, Speaker Woo filed the authority dispute trial on the 3rd of last month, claiming that Acting Prime Minister Choi infringed on the National Assembly's right to form the Constitutional Court and select justices by appointing only two of the three candidates elected by the National Assembly.
The Constitutional Court is expected to first determine whether the authority dispute trial filing was procedurally appropriate. If the filing is deemed proper, it will then decide whether Acting Prime Minister Choi has an obligation to appoint the justices and whether the failure to appoint infringes on the National Assembly's authority.
If the Constitutional Court rules that Acting Prime Minister Choi's omission is unconstitutional, Choi may appoint candidate Ma according to the verdict. If the appointment is made, the Constitutional Court, which has been operating with 6 to 8 justices since three justices retired on October 17 last year, will finally have a full bench of nine justices. The appointment of candidate Ma will attract attention regarding whether he will participate in President Yoon Suk-yeol's impeachment trial. To include candidate Ma, the Constitutional Court would need to resume the impeachment trial procedure and renew the trial process, which is at the Court's discretion. Even if appointed, candidate Ma may choose not to participate in President Yoon's impeachment trial.