Japan Institute for National Fundamentals

　　　　　On March 10, South Korea’s Constitutional Court decided to uphold the National Assembly’s impeachment charge against President Park Geun Hye. The eight judges of the court unanimously made the decision. In the face of sloppy factual findings and legal interpretation in the decision, I stood speechless.
　　　　　In principle, the South Korean constitution provides for voters’ direct election of the president and does not allow the National Assembly to question the political responsibility of the president. Only if the president commits a grave constitutional or other legal violation, the National Assembly can adopt an impeachment charge against the president with a two-thirds majority and file it with the Constitutional Court. The impeachment charge amounts to a criminal indictment by prosecutors.

Biased Constitutional Court decision
　　　　　This time, however, the National Assembly filed the impeachment charge against President Park for the reason of 13 constitutional and other legal violations without looking into facts before special prosecutors appointed by the Assembly started investigations. The impeachment charge included political expressions such as “secret organization” and “government monopolization” that are not found in legal jargon, failing to take form of indictment.
　　　　　Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court decision supported the National Assembly’s “autonomy” without questioning the constitutionality of the Assembly’s impeachment charge filed without investigations into criminal facts. The Court determined Park’s abuse of power and allowing her friend Choi Soon Sil’s intervention in government as unconstitutional and illegal. Furthermore, the decision criticized Park as lacking a willingness to comply with the constitution, citing the non-cooperative attitude on investigations and other acts of the president which were absent in the impeachment charge. The decision was too biased.
　　　　　Supporters of South Korea’s liberal democratic regime, more than 300,000 of whom participated in a national flag rally in the center of Seoul on March 1, rallied in angry protest to the Constitutional Court decision, resulting in three deaths. They condemned leftist trade unions arranging candle rallies against the president, mass media repeating erroneous reports to agitate citizens, prosecutors conducing witch-hunt investigations, the National Assembly filing the sloppy impeachment in fear of candle rallies and the Constitutional Court making the biased impeachment decision as “Five Rebels” and vowed to continue movements to prevent any pro-Pyongyang leftist president from winning in the planned presidential election in early May.
　　　　　Regrettably, they are isolated. Even conservative newspapers such as the Chosunilbo have had a part in Park’s impeachment and supported leftists. More than 60 ruling party lawmakers voted for the impeachment charge. Some half of them defected to form a new middle-of-the-road political party named Righteous Party. South Korean Prime Minister Hwang Kyo Ahn, who had been the only hope for conservatives, will be responsible for managing the presidential election as acting president and have difficulties in running in the election. In the only hopeful development, 56 members of the ruling Liberty Korea Party (formerly called Saenuri Party) signed their names against the impeachment.

South Korean crisis amounts to Japanese crisis
　　　　　Meanwhile, Japanese mass media have failed to report South Korean conservatives’ sense of crisis despite the effective gunless civil war in the neighboring country. The Japanese Diet has failed to pay attention to the growing possibility that a pro-Pyongyang administration could emerge in South Korea and could lead the entire Korean Peninsula coming under a nuclear-armed communist dictatorship.
　　　　　South Korean conservative leader and journalist Cho Gab Je has said the present South Korean crisis has come as the national spirit has loosened due to the country’s dependence on U.S. military for national security. I am strongly concerned that Japan could follow the same course as South Korea. A South Korean crisis amounts to a Japanese crisis. Japan should expeditiously amend Paragraph 2 of the Constitution’s Article 9 to have official armed forces and should increase defense spending about twofold.

Tsutomu Nishioka is Planning Committee Member, Japan Institute for National Fundamentals, and Professor at Tokyo Christian University.