Constitutional Court Concludes Final Verdict Roh Impeachment Dismissed Parties Respond to Impeachment Dismissal Roh Humbly Accepts Decision, Plans Apology Interview With Justice Choo Sun-hoe Roh to Stress Compromise, Co-existence World Leaders and Foreign Community Congratulate Roh on Reinstatement

The most fortunate aspect of this was that the nation's very first presidential impeachment trial proceeded and ended according to the procedures provided by law.

Disregarding varying opinions on the impeachment trial, Roh, the opposition party, and the citizens must keep in mind the dignity of the court and the importance of legalism and must take this case and see it as an opportunity to move on to a more mature level of democracy.

The Constitutional Court ruled that Roh's public comments and behaviors were the forsaking of his duty as protector of the constitution and in violation of the election law; however, they rejected the impeachment counts against Roh's alleged involvement in the slush fund scandal of his close aides. The court, thus, ruled that "economic mismanagement" was insufficient grounds to be subjected by the law.

The violation of the election law, which the court had acknowledged, triggered the National Assembly to take direct action, which was to pass the impeachment motion.

If Roh had only apologized appropriately to the citizens and the opposition party, or if the opposition party had thought things through carefully before voting for the impeachment motion, it seems that the international humiliation caused by the impeachment case could have had been avoided.

In short, the court confirmed that the president violated election laws but felt that kind of violation lacked the gravity required to impeach a president elected by the people. Thus, the court decided to reinstate President Roh.

With this kind of decision, President Roh, his supporters, and the opposition parties who took action to impeach the president should not waywardly interpret nor take political advantage of the court's ruling.

It is Roh who is most responsible to accept the court's decision with respect and to forever remember the significance of the court's decision when administering national affairs and services.

The court clearly said that Roh's comments expressing support to a particular political party just before the general election was, in fact, a violation of the president's lawful duty to adhere to neutrality. Moreover, in criticizing the decision of the National Election Commission, which said that Roh's behaviors were in violation of the law, Roh went against the spirit of a constitutional state and once again violated his presidential duty to protect the constitution.

Along with this, the court also said that Roh's asking for a vote of confidence was unconstitutional because Roh tried to interfere with the citizens' voting rights bestowed upon them by the constitution.

In relation to this, the court said the constitution provides that the selection of a national representative and confidence in that representative are established only though elections, establishing clear-cut lines for the constitutional meaning of representative democracy.

Despite the legal faults of the president, the Constitutional Court dismissed the presidential impeachment because it concluded that an impeachment motion was too severe and a punishment not deserved for the faults that occurred, considering that the president did not intend to go against the basic order of a free democracy and since those faults are not serious legal violations breaching the principles of a constitutional state.

It is understandable why the court agonized over the president’s legal faults and the proper punishments for them. Still, one question arises: Is there no way to punish the faults of the president if they don’t deserve impeachment, despite the clear legal violations committed by the president. The Constitutional Court seems to have tried to fill up the legal vacuum by warning, asking and even lecturing the president. That is not, however, the solution to the basic question.

Here is another point that the president should keep in mind when conducting the affairs of the state. The court asked the president to remember that he is not a president of a section of the people or the political forces who support him, but a president of all the people and the nation, emphasizing the political neutrality of a president. In regards to the president’s remarks on a civil revolution made at a gathering of his support group “Nosamo,” the court pointed out that the president’s favorable behavior toward a specific civic organization may cause a split between his supporters and non-supporters in the nation, and thus does not correspond to the responsibility of a president unifying the nation.

Right before announcing its decision to dismiss the impeachment, the court warned that the president’s power and political authority are granted by the constitution, and thus, a president who belittles the constitution himself denies and damages his power and authority. It also stressed that the president, as a symbolic figure of constitutional government and obedience to the law, must himself respect and obey the constitution and laws; not only that, by taking a decisive step against unconstitutional or illegal acts by government agencies and the public, he must do his best to realize a constitutional country and ultimately defend the fundamental order of free democracy.

What the court means by all this is that President Roh’s attitude toward the law is a more important problem than his breach of the laws. The President should read this inner meaning in the court’s decision. The decision is also interpreted as a stern warning against increasing disrespect for and disobedience of laws by some teachers and civil workers who should set an example for the public.

The Constitutional Court is the final judgment body that defends the constitution for the public. The reason why the court pointed out logically that the President not only violated his obligation to protect the constitution by breaching the law but also took a light attitude toward obeying laws is that it may feel the urgent need and sense of emergency to send a clear message to the President, in the spirit of the constitution, while trying to avoid confusion and division that a dismissal from office might cause.

The court’s decision has historical meaning because it reconfirmed the simple principle that the president is under the constitution and a constitutional government cannot be realized if even the president ignores the law.

Although the court decided to dismiss the impeachment, whether the court’s decision can be justified in history is up to how differently from the past President Roh administers state affairs and deals with politics. If the president repeats the same mistakes even after receiving such warnings from the court, it would provide the grounds for incessant criticism of the decision and do nothing more than damage the reputation of the court. Therefore, one can say that it is on President Roh’s shoulders that the responsibility and duty to make complete this decision by the court rests.