The Constitutional Court's handling of President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial has come under scrutiny, amid concerns about fairness and due process.

The ruling People Power Party (PPP) and the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK) are at odds over a decision to remove the treason charge from the proceedings. Yoon has been accused of treason and violating the Constitution.

The two parties have sharply differing opinions on two key issues: first, whether a new impeachment motion is required, and second, whether there was an alleged behind-the-scenes agreement between the Constitutional Court and the DPK which initiated the impeachment trial.

At a meeting of the National Assembly's Legislation and Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Rep. Joo Jin-woo of the PPP called for a new impeachment motion. He argued that the original motion, passed in December, was heavily influenced by the treason charge, which motivated over 200 lawmakers to vote in favor of it. With the removal of this major charge, Joo, a former prosecutor, argued that the National Assembly should draw up a new measure reflecting these changes and vote on it again.

"This is a completely new situation. The National Assembly must draft a new measure that reflects this significant change and then vote on it," he said.

DPK members, however, disagreed, arguing that the current motion still encompasses "acts of insurrection," even though it does not provide specific details.

Rep. Joo also raised the allegation that the Constitutional Court encouraged the DPK to drop the treason charge to expedite the trial. If true, he suggested, this could compromise the fairness of the process.

The allegation surfaced after a pretrial conference on Jan. 3, when the justices met with attorneys representing both the plaintiff (the National Assembly) and the defendant (the president). An attorney for the National Assembly revealed that the decision to drop the treason charge followed advice from the justices, who recommended focusing on Yoon's alleged constitutional violations to expedite the trial. This statement stirred controversy, implying potential undue influence by the court.

Both the Constitutional Court and the DPK denied the allegation. The court maintained that it had conducted its duties in strict accordance with the Constitution and the law, emphasizing its commitment to impartiality and independence from partisan interests.

The controversy surrounding the trial raises concerns about fairness, especially given the judiciary's history of handling high-profile cases. During the previous Moon Jae-in administration, the judiciary faced criticism for delays in cases involving prominent politicians. For example, in November 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against former DPK lawmaker Yoon Mi-hyang for embezzlement, a case that took over four years to settle. She was sentenced to a one-and-a-half-year jail term which was suspended for three years. Had the ruling been made while she was in office, the activist-turned-politician would have lost her parliamentary seat. However, because the ruling was delayed, she served her full four-year term and retired from her position as a lawmaker.

Similarly, Rep. Hwang Un-ha, indicted in 2020 for election meddling, was sentenced in November 2023, nearly four years after his indictment. Hwang, a former police official, was indicted in January 2020 on charges of election meddling. He was accused of helping a close aide to Moon, when he was president, secure a victory in the 2018 local election for mayor of Ulsan, a city on the southeastern coast. Hwang was later elected as a lawmaker on the DPK's ticket. In November 2023, he was sentenced to three years in prison. The district court's ruling came three years and 10 months after his indictment. Due to the delayed ruling, Hwang, like Yoon, was able to complete his four-year term as a DPK lawmaker. If the ruling is upheld by the upper court, however, his second term will be cut short.

Now, the Constitutional Court is facing criticism for its handling of the impeachment procedure. The court has scheduled five trial sessions without prior consultation with either the plaintiff or defendant's attorneys, and has scheduled two trials per week. The court's unusually rapid trial schedule has raised suspicions that it plans to complete the impeachment process quickly. Given that impeaching a sitting president is a critical decision with potentially far-reaching consequences, it is essential that the process be thoroughly deliberated, ensuring both the plaintiff and defendant have adequate time to present their cases. A speedy trial should not come at the expense of due process.