April 19th Revolution Memorial Monument. Source: Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The Constitution is not a user manual for power, but a prohibition line drawn to protect the people.

If the self-correction mechanisms of state agencies have failed, the truth must be uncovered through a special counsel investigation demanded by the people.

If even this final warning is kicked aside, the sovereign people will reclaim the power they delegated.

The Constitution was not created to protect those in power. It was created to protect the people from power.

It is not merely a document that tells the President what they can do; it is a document that commands what the President must not do. It does not merely grant the National Assembly the power to legislate; it prevents the majority party from infringing upon the people's freedom and rights at will.

The Constitution is not a user manual for power.

It is a prohibition line drawn by the people in front of power.

Do not touch the people's ballots. Do not silence the people. Do not circumvent the procedures established by law. Do not place the power delegated by the people above the people themselves.

This is the command of the Constitution.

Yet, in the Republic of Korea today, that prohibition line is being dismantled one by one.

During the June 3 local elections, voting was halted due to a shortage of ballots, and citizens were forced to leave polling stations without casting their votes. The right to vote, which the state must guarantee above all else, vanished in the field.

Even then, the responsible agencies merely calculated whether the outcome of the election had been affected.

The sequence of the inquiry was wrong.

Under the Constitution, the right to vote is not a right protected only when it can alter election results. If even a single person was unable to vote due to the state's failure, it must be determined who reduced the supply, who was informed of the potential shortage, and who failed to respond properly despite being aware that voting had stopped.

A citizen’s vote is not an administrative service provided by election management agencies at their convenience. It is a constitutional right that the sovereign can demand the state to guarantee.

Claiming that there was no impact on election results after stripping away the right to vote is not an attempt to persuade the people.

It is an insult to the Constitution.

The greater problem lies in what happened after the incident.

Based on what judgment was the number of ballots determined? When and to whom were the ballot shortages and the halting of voting reported? What did the situation room order? Why are the documents and footage demanded by the public not being fully disclosed?

State agencies must provide proof before asking to be trusted.

Trust is not something that can be coerced; it is earned through evidence.

If the election was fair and the management was lawful, they need only disclose the records and undergo verification. If there is no fault, there is no reason to avoid an independent investigation. But if they claim there are no records, block requests for disclosure, and brand the citizens demanding verification as conspiracy theorists, the responsibility for fueling suspicion lies not with the people, but with the state.

The election management agency failed to reveal the truth on its own. The National Assembly’s parliamentary investigation also failed to secure records convincing to the public or to identify those responsible. Existing investigative agencies, too, have failed to present the full picture of the constitutional infringement of voting rights to the people.

If the self-correction functions of state agencies have stopped, a Special Counsel must intervene.

This is a "People’s Special Counsel"—a special investigation into the deprivation of suffrage, requested by the people and established by law through the National Assembly.

The People’s Special Counsel is not a political weapon for any party. It is an investigative order issued to the state by those who were denied their right to vote and those who were denied their right to know the truth.

We must uncover who set the standards for ballot preparation. We must uncover who knew about the possibility of a shortage. We must uncover how the situation of halted voting was reported and handled. If records were never created or have disappeared, the circumstances behind that must also be investigated. Anyone who blocked the disclosure of data and independent verification must be held accountable.

If there is no wrongdoing, there is no reason to fear a special counsel.

Refusing a special counsel while demanding trust does not work. The public no longer accepts the announcements of the National Election Commission as synonymous with the truth of an election. Unverified authority is not authority. Independence without responsibility is not independence; it is a privilege.

It is not just the right to vote that is being threatened by the Constitution.

If power blocks speech that is inconvenient under the label of "fake news" and pushes platforms to delete posts and videos before a court has made a judgment, freedom of expression also collapses. If the government does not issue deletion orders directly but instead lets private companies silence the public on their own, it is no different from outsourcing censorship.

The same applies to administrative practices where political conclusions are reached first, and inter-ministerial consultations and legal procedures are merely tacked on afterward. Procedure is not an obstacle to policy. It is a braking system installed to prevent power from infringing upon the rights of the people under the pretext of serving the people.

Power that treats votes lightly, silences voices, and bypasses procedures talks about defending the Constitution and constitutional amendment.

You cannot entrust the design of a lock to a thief.

Those who have kept the Constitution have the right to amend it. If a power that does not even respect the popular sovereignty, fundamental rights, separation of powers, and due process stipulated in the current Constitution claims it will write a new one, it does not sound like a promise to strengthen the Constitution. It only raises suspicions that they are seeking to remake the rules of power to suit themselves.

There is something that must be done before constitutional amendment.

Disclose the truth.

Accept the People’s Special Counsel.

Bring those responsible to court.

The People’s Special Counsel is the people’s final warning.

It is a warning that the people are still demanding that the truth be revealed and the constitutional order be set right within the framework of law and institutions. It is the people's command to investigate, disclose records, and hold the wrongdoers accountable.

If even this final institutional request is kicked aside, power will force the people toward harsher choices.

The April 19th Revolution was not an explosion that happened overnight. It was an event where the sovereign, having been ignored and lied to by a power that refused to correct an election fraud, rose up to bring down the regime that betrayed the Constitution.

The people did not abandon the Constitution.

They reclaimed it.

Even now, the people are asking:

Why were there citizens who were unable to vote?

Who failed to keep the records?

Why is the data and footage not being disclosed?

Why are the people demanding verification being branded as conspiracy theorists?

The answer is not difficult. Simply disclose all records and submit to the investigation of an independent special counsel.

Yet, do you intend to hide the truth until the end and mock the people’s final warning?

Do you wish to see a second April 19th?

Accept the People’s Special Counsel.

It is not a demand to topple the regime. It is the final opportunity to uphold the crumbling constitutional order within the bounds of law and institutions.

If you ignore even this warning, the people will reclaim the power they delegated. They will record the events, file charges, hold you accountable in courts and squares, and ultimately pass judgment through the ballot box.

They will pull down the power that has risen above the Constitution and place it back beneath the feet of the people.

This is not treason.

It is the act of returning Article 1 of the Constitution—that the people are the owners of power—to reality. It is the resistance of the sovereign to defend the constitutional order against power that has betrayed the Constitution.

Constitution, we apologize.

You existed to protect the people from power, yet we remained silent for too long while power trampled upon you.

But from now on, we will not settle for mere apologies.

We will uncover the truth through the People’s Special Counsel and bring those responsible to judgment.

The People’s Special Counsel is not a petition.

It is the people’s command.

And it is the people’s final warning.