Lawmakers from the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) expressed deep discontent with the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) after its first attempt to detain President Yoon Suk Yeol ended in failure on Friday.

Rep. Park Sung-joon of the DPK warned that the failed attempt could harm Korea's international reputation.

"I'm afraid Korea may be seen by other countries as a nation incapable of enforcing a warrant," he said on Saturday. He called for the CIO to make another attempt to arrest Yoon, who was stripped of presidential powers after the National Assembly passed a motion to impeach him for his short-lived declaration of martial law on Dec. 3. Rep. Park underscored that the CIO should carry out its responsibilities effectively and properly.

Rep. Noh Jong-myun of the DPK proposed that the CIO should hand the case over to the police, emphasizing that the search and detention warrants remain valid until Monday.

The CIO faced mounting criticism after its first failed attempt to arrest Yoon. On Friday, a team of dozens of CIO investigators, backed by around 150 police officers, entered the presidential residence compound in Seoul to carry out the arrest. However, they were met with resistance from approximately 200 soldiers and members of the presidential security team, who blocked their advance within a few hundred meters of Yoon's residence. The tense standoff lasted five and a half hours before the CIO ultimately decided to call off the arrest attempt.

Yoon became the first sitting Korean president to face a detention warrant and it was also the first time that two authorities — the CIO and the Presidential Security Service — confronted each other over the arrest of an incumbent head of state to detain him. The hours-long confrontation was broadcast live nationwide and received global media attention, with outlets such as CNN and BBC covering the CIO's efforts to arrest the president. Korea has found itself at the center of international attention, but unfortunately for all the wrong reasons.

Some media outlets have expressed concerns that the globally televised standoff could damage the nation's credibility.

Yoon, a former prosecutor, is accused of exploiting legal loopholes to avoid prosecution. He did not cooperate with investigators when they requested his presence three times prior to the arrest attempt, responding through his attorneys that he would prioritize the impeachment trial underway at the Constitutional Court. His attorneys argued that there was a procedural flaw, claiming that the CIO did not have the authority to investigate Yoon on charges of insurrection. They argued that the search and arrest warrants were unlawful, asserting that jurisdiction over insurrection cases falls under the authority of the police.

As president, Yoon must address any allegations against him and, if necessary, appear before investigators to answer questions. No one is above the law and the rule of law must be respected. Yoon should honor his previous commitment to fully cooperate with the investigation.

The CIO has also come under fire, facing accusations of deliberately selecting a favorable court to obtain the search and detention warrants for the president. Critics noted that the warrants were requested at the Seoul Western District Court, an unusual choice given that investigators typically seek warrants for high-profile figures from the Seoul Central District Court.

Experts pointed out that the judge at Seoul's Central District Court has consistently been and remains hesitant to issue detention or search warrants for the president. The judge believes such warrants should only be granted for a sitting president if there is clear evidence of insurrection. While Yoon faces accusations of insurrection, investigators have yet to secure sufficient evidence to support these claims.

Despite these concerns, a judge at the Western District Court issued the warrants and even nullified clauses of the Criminal Procedure Law that prohibit searches of facilities containing military secrets. The presidential compound is one such facility. This decision has sparked controversy. Legal experts argue that judges should apply the law, not shape it, and criticized the justice for allegedly abusing his power. Flawed methods cannot justify the intended outcome.