On the 30th, People Power Party lawmakers staged a protest at the National Assembly plenary session, demanding an end to the election of standing committee chairs regarding the formation of the second half of the National Assembly. [Photo = Yonhap News]Within the People Power Party (PPP), the option of a "mass resignation of lawmakers" is being discussed. This follows the convergence of controversies regarding the Democratic Party of Korea's push to form the second half of the National Assembly, the right to recommend special prosecutors in cases involving the disenfranchisement of voters, and the issue of "fabricated indictments" (the dropping of charges). The question is whether this option holds actual legal weight or is merely a political pressure tactic.

The conclusion of this fact-check is as follows: A mass resignation of lawmakers does not automatically take effect simply through a party-level resolution. However, its political impact is significant, as it can force the Democratic Party and the National Assembly Speaker into a position where they must make a choice and provide justification for potential extra-parliamentary struggles.

Legislative seats are not lost through party-level resignation resolutions alone

Even if the People Power Party resolves to resign en masse at a general meeting of lawmakers, this does not in itself lead to the loss of their legislative seats. Article 135 of the National Assembly Act prescribes a separate procedure for the resignation of a lawmaker. To resign, a member must submit a resignation letter signed and sealed by the individual to the Speaker of the National Assembly. During a session, the National Assembly may approve the resignation through a vote, while during a recess, the Speaker may grant it.

Therefore, a "party-wide mass resignation" is merely a political resolution. The actual loss of office requires each member to submit an individual resignation letter, followed by the formal approval process of the National Assembly. If the assembly is in session, a vote in the plenary session is required; unless a special quorum is specified, it is reasonable to apply the general quorum for resolutions under Article 49 of the Constitution—that is, the attendance of a majority of the total members and the consent of a majority of those present.

At this point, the Democratic Party and the National Assembly Speaker become the primary gatekeepers of the mass resignation card. It is unlikely that the Democratic Party, holding a majority of seats, would approve the resignations of the PPP lawmakers. Even during a recess, it is highly improbable that the Speaker would process them en masse, as doing so would plunge the very composition of the National Assembly into a constitutional crisis.

Whether a National Assembly with fewer than 200 members is automatically dissolved cannot be asserted

The point at which the mass resignation card becomes a constitutional issue centers on the number "200." Article 41, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution states, "The number of members of the National Assembly shall be determined by law, and shall be 200 or more." Under the current Public Official Election Act, the total number of seats is 300, including 254 regional districts and 46 proportional representation seats.

If all 101 People Power Party lawmakers were to resign, leaving only 199 members, it would hit the constitutional lower limit. The issue then becomes whether the "200 or more" mentioned in Article 41 is merely the lower bound of the statutory number of seats or a minimum requirement for a functioning National Assembly.

However, the current Constitution does not contain an express provision stating that the National Assembly is automatically dissolved if the number of members falls below 200. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that "the National Assembly will automatically dissolve if 101 or more members resign." The accurate assessment is that "a National Assembly with fewer than 200 members enters into a controversy regarding the legitimacy of its constitutional composition."

If the remaining assembly continues to process bills, impeachment motions, motions for appointment, and budget plans in that state, the validity of such exercises of power could be challenged through constitutional litigation, such as a dispute over the scope of authority. This would essentially mean a paralysis of legislative functions.

While automatic dissolution cannot be confirmed, the exercise of authority by an assembly with 199 or fewer members could become a major constitutional issue requiring a ruling from the Constitutional Court.

Succession of proportional representation is a variable

The mass resignation card faces a hurdle regarding proportional representation (PR) seats. If a district lawmaker resigns, that district becomes vacant and is subject to a by-election. However, PR lawmakers are different. In principle, when a vacancy occurs for a PR seat in the National Assembly, the next person on the party's candidate list succeeds to the seat.

Therefore, even if incumbent PR lawmakers resign, if the next candidates in line succeed to their seats, the effect of reducing the total number of members is only temporary.

For the mass resignation card to have an actual effect of reducing the total headcount, not only the incumbent PR lawmakers but also their successors would need to declare in writing their intention to waive succession or resign immediately upon taking office.

Theoretically, this is possible, but practically, it is difficult. This is because the intent of every single candidate, not just the incumbents, must be aligned. If even one person accepts the succession, that PR seat is filled once again.

The political essence is securing justification for extra-parliamentary struggle

It is unlikely that a mass resignation would be completed with the actual loss of all seats. It requires parliamentary approval during sessions and the Speaker’s permission during recesses. The chances of the Democratic Party and the Speaker accepting this are slim. When the issue of PR succession is also taken into account, the probability of a mass resignation leading to an assembly of fewer than 200 members becomes even lower.

However, the political effectiveness of the mass resignation card does not depend solely on whether the resignations are finalized. Rather, the very fact that it is difficult for the Democratic Party and the Speaker to accept them creates a pressure effect.

If they accept the resignations, they must face the constitutional controversy of an assembly with fewer than 200 members; if they reject them, they face the burden of being seen as the majority party that blocked a demand the opposition party was willing to risk their careers for.

The first tangible benefit for the People Power Party here is the justification for extra-parliamentary struggle. If they were to walk out of the National Assembly immediately, they could face counter-attacks for boycotting the assembly or ignoring public livelihood.

However, the narrative changes if this follows a resolution for mass resignation, the submission of resignation letters, and a demand for the opposition's right to recommend a special prosecutor in cases of disenfranchisement. The PPP could argue, "We exhausted every possible procedure within the assembly, but were blocked by the Democratic Party and the Speaker."

This gives their extra-parliamentary struggle the legitimacy of being a constitutional struggle chosen only after internal parliamentary procedures were blocked, rather than mere street politics.

Therefore, the success or failure of the mass resignation card depends on what they put at the forefront.

If the distribution of standing committee chairs is put at the forefront, it looks like a fight over positions. Conversely, if the right to recommend a special prosecutor in cases of disenfranchisement is established as the primary demand, the front changes.

Demands for the withdrawal of the Democratic Party's unilateral formation of the assembly and the discarding of the "fabricated indictment" (dropping of charges) special prosecutor law should be placed behind that. Only then can the mass resignation card be interpreted as a political determination to uncover the truth behind allegations of disenfranchisement, rather than a mere protest against the formation of the assembly.

Fact-check Verdict

The mass resignation card does not have automatic legal effect. Legislative seats do not vanish through party resolution alone; it requires National Assembly approval during sessions and the Speaker's permission during recesses. Due to the issue of proportional representation succession, the actual effect on reducing the total headcount is limited.

Automatic dissolution of a National Assembly with fewer than 200 members cannot be asserted. However, if the remaining assembly were to exercise core powers—such as legislation or impeachment motions—while the headcount is at 199 or below, it could lead to constitutional litigation, such as a dispute over the scope of authority.

In conclusion, the mass resignation card is a tool with a greater effect on political pressure than the possibility of legal completion.

The political net benefits can be summarized as: securing justification for extra-parliamentary struggle, pressuring for the right to recommend a special prosecutor, shaking the legitimacy of the Democratic Party’s unilateral assembly formation, and demanding the discarding of the "fabricated indictment" special prosecutor law.

Success depends not on whether the resignations are accepted, but on how the People Power Party explains what this decision is intended to achieve.