Constitutional Court justices take their seats at a courtroom on Thursday as they were to issue decisions on two impeachment cases. Yonhap

The Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the Board of Audit and Inspection (BAI) chief and three prosecutors in their impeachment trials initiated by the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK). The court's decisions in two separate the cases were unanimous, a rare outcome given the diverse political views of the eight justices.

These unanimous rulings came 98 days after motions to impeach BAI chief Choe Jae-hae, Lee Chang-soo, head of Seoul's Central District Prosecutors' Office, and two senior prosecutors had been approved by the National Assembly on Dec. 5. The four individuals had been suspended from their duties since that time. However, the verdicts on Thursday reversed their suspensions, allowing Choe, Lee and the two prosecutors to immediately resume their duties.

Choe was accused of covering up suspicions related to the relocation of the presidential office and of launching politically motivated investigations into several individuals who held key positions during the previous Moon Jae-in government. One of the individuals allegedly targeted by the BAI for political retaliation was Rep. Jeon Hyun-heui, who previously served as the head of the Anti-Corruption and Civil Rights Commission under the Moon administration. Choe denied the allegations, asserting that the BAI investigation was fair and not politically motivated. He was cleared of the charges, with all eight Constitutional Court justices issuing a unanimous decision in his favor.

The DPK had pushed through motions to impeach Lee and the two other prosecutors, accusing them of turning a blind eye to first lady Kim Keon Hee's alleged involvement in manipulating Deutsche Bank stocks. The three prosecutors denied these allegations. During a hearing on Feb. 24, Lee argued that the impeachment of the three prosecutors, including himself, was politically motivated, stating that the DPK had sought retribution for the results of their investigations. He also accused the DPK of abusing its power.

The court's rulings in these two separate impeachment cases are seen as a litmus test for the future of President Yoon Suk Yeol. The reasoning is that the justices' opinions and legal stances could reveal their political leanings, which may influence decisions in Yoon's potential impeachment trial. However, this view is not necessarily accurate, as the cases involving Choe and the three prosecutors differ from Yoon's case. While Choe and the prosecutors were seen as victims of the DPK's indiscriminate use of impeachment motions, Yoon's actions, such as declaring martial law — albeit briefly — place him in a different position entirely.

The Constitutional Court is set to issue several decisions regarding the impeachment trials of high-ranking officials, including Prime Minister Han Duck-soo. The court has faced its busiest schedule since President Yoon took office in May 2022, due to the DPK's frequent abuse of legislative power to impeach government officials they are at odds with. Since Yoon's inauguration, the DPK has initiated a total of 29 impeachment motions against Cabinet ministers and other government officials, 13 of which the National Assembly approved. This high number highlights the extent of the DPK's abuse of power. In the nearly eight decades since the founding of the Republic of Korea, only 16 impeachment motions have been approved, with 13 of them occurring in just 31 months under Yoon's presidency. The surge in impeachment trials during this period has forced the Constitutional Court justices to devote significant time to relatively minor cases, leaving them with less time to review the critically important impeachment trial of Yoon.

The Constitutional Court has faced accusations of unfairness due to several questionable decisions in relation to Yoon's impeachment trial. The court independently scheduled hearings without consulting the attorneys representing the defendant, designating 10 days — every Tuesday and Thursday until mid-February — unilaterally for hearings. Such decisions are unusual, as courts typically consult with attorneys before finalizing a hearing schedule. Furthermore, the court raised concerns among legal experts when it adopted indictments from the ongoing criminal case as evidence. Indictments detail alleged offenses and the facts supporting them, but these are still allegations, some of which were later proven to be unfounded. The court's missteps have contributed to a decline in trust in the judiciary. As the institution responsible for restoring public confidence, the Constitutional Court must now prove its integrity.

Yoon's impeachment trial presents an opportunity for the court to demonstrate its commitment to justice. While it remains unclear when the ruling will be made, as the eight justices continue their review, it is expected soon. The Constitutional Court must prove itself as a trustworthy institution, making its decision solely based on the Constitution, free from political influence.