A confirmation hearing for the nominees of Constitutional Court justices is held at the National Assembly in Seoul, Monday. Many seats are empty, as the ruling People Power Party boycotted the hearing. Yonhap

The National Assembly's confirmation hearings for three justice nominees to the Constitutional Court began its two-day process, Monday, as opposition parties rush to fill vacant positions on the bench ahead of the deliberations concerning President Yoon Suk Yeol's impeachment trial.

The Assembly's confirmation hearing committee focused on evaluating Ma Eun-hyuk and Jeong Gye-seon, two candidates recommended by the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea (DPK).

On Tuesday, the committee is set to examine Cho Han-chang, the nominee endorsed by the ruling People Power Party (PPP).

With the ruling party boycotting the hearings, Monday's sessions proceeded with the participation of the opposition bloc only.

Ma Eun-hyuk, a nominee for Constitutional Court justice, speaks during a confirmation hearing session at the National Assembly in Seoul, Monday. Yonhap

The PPP argued that the DPK's unilateral attempt to appoint justices without bipartisan agreement violates the spirit of the Constitution and is thus subject to jurisdictional dispute adjudication.

The party said it would seek an injunction if the opposition parties continue to proceed. The party further criticized the DPK for shifting its stance on the appointment of Constitutional Court justices solely for political gain.

"The DPK had recklessly issued impeachment motions and delayed the appointment of Constitutional Court justices, knowing that once the court's full nine-member bench is restored, the impeachment motions (led by them) would be dismissed," Rep. Kweon Seong-dong, acting party leader and floor leader of the PPP, said Monday.

"While appointing justices has been possible for over two months, the DPK insisted on maintaining a six-member bench for their own political gain. Now, they suddenly push to appoint justices to review the president's impeachment trial, which reveals their intentions."

The PPP also argued that it is impossible for an acting president to appoint Constitutional Court justices. Still, the conservative party at the same time maintains that the acting president can appoint the defense minister and the minister of interior and safety with his authority.

Jeong Gye-seon, a nominee for Constitutional Court justice, speaks during a confirmation hearing session at the National Assembly in Seoul, Monday. Yonhap

In contrast, the DPK vowed to accelerate the appointment process, stating that it aims to adopt the confirmation hearing reports as early as Tuesday and hold a plenary vote later this week. The main opposition party plans to begin the impeachment trial of Yoon in mid-January and reach a conclusion by February.

However, it remains uncertain whether acting President Han Duck-soo can exercise his authority to appoint the Constitutional Court justices.

All three Constitutional Court justice nominees have said in their written submissions to the National Assembly that the acting president is legally authorized to appoint the justices.

A police officer stands guard at the front gate of the Constitutional Court in Seoul, Monday. Yonhap

In addition to questions surrounding the scope of his authority over the appointments, Han also faces the threat of impeachment by opposition parties.

DPK floor leader Park Chan-dae said Monday that the party would immediately initiate impeachment proceedings against the acting president, if he fails to promulgate the special counsel bill on first lady Kim Keon Hee and another special counsel bill on the insurrection case during Tuesday's regular Cabinet meeting.

"We will not tolerate the delaying tactics of those who sought to carry out the insurrection. If the acting president does not promulgate the special counsel bills by Tuesday, the DPK will immediately initiate impeachment proceedings against him," Park said.

In response to the opposition's pressure to adopt the special counsel bills, the Prime Minister's Office issued a cautious response.

"The office will listen to various opinions and make a decision based on the Constitution, laws and the future of the country," an official said, stating its previous position that it is a matter that requires consideration of various opinions based on the law and the long-term view of the country.

It is expected that the fate of the two bills will be decided by the given legal deadline of Jan. 1, suggesting that the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday won't likely be making the decision on the two special counsel bills.