Yoon's Side Files Motion for Constitutional Review of "Insurrection Special Counsel Act" with Court and Constitutional Court

"Fundamentally Undermines Separation of Powers... Infringes on Judicial Independence"... Criticizes Special Insurrection Tribunal as "Pressure on the Judiciary... Leading to Politicization of the Judiciary"

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol leaving the court. (Seoul=Yonhap News) Former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who is under investigation by a special counsel regarding the December 3rd martial law declaration, is seen leaving the Seoul Central District Court in Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the 9th, after attending his pre-arrest warrant review (warrant validity hearing). 2025.7.9 [Joint Press Corps] photo@yna.co.kr

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol's legal team announced on the 9th that they have filed a motion with the court for a constitutional review of the "Special Counsel Act on Insurrection" and, separately, have submitted a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court.

In a statement released that day, Yoon’s side argued, "The current Special Counsel Act fundamentally undermines the principle of separation of powers, as the legislature is directly intervening in the investigative authority—which is the inherent domain of the executive branch—by appointing a special counsel while excluding specific political parties, and by unilaterally designating the scope and subject of the investigation." They added, "Legislative intervention in the investigation process itself, beyond merely setting criteria, is a direct violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers."

They continued, "The current Special Counsel Act effectively hollows out the constitutional warrant requirement," and stated, "The Act stipulates that the requirement for a judge-issued warrant for search and seizure can be bypassed with the approval of three-fifths of the sitting members of the National Assembly. This undermines the fundamental rights system guaranteed by Article 12 of the Constitution solely through a legislative vote, which is a direct violation of the fundamental constitutional principles meant to guarantee personal freedom."

Yoon's side also argued, "The essence of the special counsel system is also being severely undermined. Originally, a special counsel is a supplementary and exceptional mechanism used only when the prosecution cannot conduct an investigation or when an investigation is notably inadequate," adding, "However, the current act allows for the transfer of cases already undergoing trial for the purpose of maintaining public prosecution, which clearly contradicts the principles of supplementarity and exception. This constitutes an improper intervention in judicial proceedings and results in an infringement upon the independence of the judiciary."

Regarding the National Assembly's move to pass a so-called "more powerful special counsel act" that would significantly expand the scope and duration of the investigation, Yoon's team criticized it as "a measure that destroys the principle of separation of powers to the point of effectively stripping the executive branch of its powers."

They also pointed to the proposal for a special insurrection tribunal as "blatant pressure on the judiciary," stating that "it not only leads to the politicization of the judiciary but also seriously infringes on the 'right to be tried by a judge,' as guaranteed by the Constitution."

Yoon's side added, "We request that the Constitutional Court clearly clarify the unconstitutionality of the Special Counsel Act through this ruling and restore the separation of powers and the rule of law guaranteed by the Constitution," noting that "the Constitutional Court's decision will serve as the final bastion in safeguarding our liberal democratic constitutional order."

A motion for constitutional review is a system where a court, upon its own authority or upon the request of a party to a trial, petitions the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of a law when that law is a prerequisite for the judgment of the case.

If a court decides to file such a motion, the Constitutional Court receives it and proceeds with the review process. The relevant trial is suspended until a decision on constitutionality is issued by the Constitutional Court.