The Blue House [Yonhap News] 

The 'Professors for Social Justice' (PSJ) expresses deep concern regarding the recent discussions on constitutional amendment promoted by President Lee Jae-myung and the Blue House. The PSJ cannot shake the suspicion that these discussions are not a sincere effort for the nation's future and constitutional order, but rather an 'amendment issue' abused to evade the President's judicial risks and facilitate political realignment.

The origin traces back to a private golf outing in early July between President Lee and senior lawmakers of the People Power Party. According to attendees such as Rep. Kim Tae-ho, President Lee expressed agreement with reforming to a decentralized power structure, stating, "We should amend the Constitution even if it means shortening the term." In response, the Blue House stated on August 14 that "a four-year, two-term presidency with strengthened parliamentary powers has the highest public acceptance," and President Lee reaffirmed this via social media, emphasizing the possibility of accepting a shortened term. However, igniting constitutional discussions through a private meeting with senior opposition lawmakers is highly likely to be read as a political ploy to frame the amendment as a 'bipartisan' issue, induce internal fissures within the opposition, and test public opinion. Rep. Kim Tae-ho’s behavior on August 15, when he stated, "I hope that sincere discussions on constitutional amendment will begin between the ruling and opposition parties," despite knowing that the amendment is being used as a card for the administration to escape a crisis, deserves public reprimand.

President Lee pledged to accept a four-year, two-term system and a shortened term during his campaign, and he repeated this in May and July 2025 and August 2026. However, it is no coincidence that the discourse on constitutional amendment emerged immediately after a 'dead cross' occurred (46% vs 44%) in the August 11–13 Gallup Korea poll, where negative evaluations of state performance first surpassed positive ones. Amidst piled-up national issues such as falling stock prices, skyrocketing real estate prices, and trade friction with the U.S., pushing the constitutional issue is closer to assembling a puzzle to avoid judicial risks. Although the Blue House cites 'consistency of pledges,' the sudden emphasis on constitutional amendment does not appear to be a 'deep-seated plan' (simmowonryeo)—careful, long-term planning independent of the situation—for the nation's sustainable development, but rather a stopgap political engineering measure.

As pointed out by the opposition, since the five criminal trials currently suspended during the President's term will resume after June 2030, it is difficult to see the moves to change the term as unrelated to judicial risk evasion. Article 128, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution explicitly blocks a serving president from extending or repeating their term by stipulating that amendments regarding term extensions or re-election do not apply to the president in office at the time of the proposal. Nevertheless, there is a significant possibility that the current administration's approach will be interpreted as an attempt to effectively neutralize this safeguard. While they use "overcoming the imperial presidency" and "strengthening parliamentary powers" as justification, public opinion is not favorable. In a survey by 'PenN' and 'Public Opinion Fairness' from the 9th to the 10th of this month, only 31.2% favored 'application starting from the incumbent president,' while 57.1% supported 'application from the next president,' indicating clear public opposition to applying it to the current president.

Realistically, the possibility of the constitutional amendment succeeding is extremely low. It requires the consent of more than two-thirds of the National Assembly members and a national referendum, which is impossible for the Democratic Party to achieve alone. Forcing it through without justification, public support, or consensus is an act that reduces the nation's fundamental order to a tool for reshuffling the political landscape. Constitutional amendment should be carried out for the long-term future of the nation, not as a card for a specific administration to escape a crisis.

To make matters worse, the credibility of the National Election Commission (NEC), which would oversee the referendum, has been severely damaged. During the local elections on June 3, there was a shortage of ballots at 91 polling stations, and voting was temporarily suspended at 26 locations, infringing on voting rights. Even the NEC's own fact-finding committee confirmed "total incompetence," recommended an investigation into 12 high-ranking officials, and stated that "innovation equivalent to the dissolution of the NEC" is necessary. If an institution that has lost public trust manages a referendum on changing the nation’s fundamental norms, the legitimacy of the results will inevitably be fundamentally shaken.

Therefore, the PSJ demands the following:

First, President Lee Jae-myung must clearly declare to the people that he will not attempt to extend his term or seek re-election or consecutive terms under any circumstances, in order to resolve suspicions that this constitutional amendment is a means to evade criminal trials.

Second, constitutional amendment is a long-term undertaking that must be pursued cautiously based on national consensus. The administration, which has already lost public trust, must immediately stop its push for constitutional amendment.

Third, a thorough investigation and a special prosecutor's probe into the NEC incident must be conducted first. Discussions on a constitutional amendment involving a national referendum should only take place after an election management system that the public can trust is established.

Fourth, if there are opposition politicians who deem this administration trustworthy enough to discuss constitutional amendment, they should publicly state their position before the people before engaging in discussions. However, they must keep in mind that such an expression of intent will carry the risk of their own political lives.

Constitutional amendment must be for the nation's long-term future, and it must not be abused as a political tool for an administration to escape a crisis or extend its power. The PSJ will continue to monitor and struggle until the end to protect the spirit of the Constitution and liberal democracy together with the people.

August 18, 2026

Professors for Social Justice (PSJ)