Yoo Sang-beom, Deputy Floor Leader for Operations of the People Power Party, leaves the plenary hall after making a statement on the constitutional amendment bill during the first plenary session of the May extraordinary parliamentary session held at the National Assembly on the 7th. [Photo = Yonhap News]

With the constitutional amendment bill being deemed not to have proceeded to a vote at the National Assembly plenary session on the 7th, the next issue shifts to the possibility of a re-vote. 

As the members of the People Power Party did not participate in the plenary session vote according to their party's directive, the constitutional amendment bill did not fail due to a lack of votes for or against it, but rather because the vote itself did not constitute a quorum.

Vote Did Not Constitute Quorum, Not Rejected

The constitutional amendment bill required the assent of more than two-thirds of the 286 members of the National Assembly, meaning at least 191 votes in favor. As the bill was proposed by six parties excluding the People Power Party and independent lawmakers, totaling 187 proponents, it required at least 12 members of the People Power Party to vote in favor for its passage.

The prediction that the vote would not constitute a quorum if the People Power Party members abstained from the plenary session vote in accordance with their party's directive was raised before the vote.

Therefore, it is difficult to characterize this matter as a simple "rejection." 

Rejection occurs when a vote is constituted, but the number of affirmative votes does not meet the requirements for passage, and the bill is dismissed. On the other hand, a vote not constituting a quorum occurs when the minimum requirements for a vote are not met, and the vote itself does not proceed.

Due to this distinction, the legal question remains whether the constitutional amendment bill has been completely shelved, whether the same bill can be reconsidered, and whether a re-vote is possible within the same session.

Two Concepts Distinguished by the Constitutional Court

The core legal principle is Article 92 of the National Assembly Act, the so-called principle of one submission per session.

Article 92 of the National Assembly Act stipulates that "a rejected bill shall not be re-proposed or submitted during the same session." If the same bill is rejected after a vote for and against it, it is fundamentally restricted from being re-proposed or submitted during the same session.

The question is whether a vote not constituting a quorum can be considered the same as "rejection" under the National Assembly Act.

At this point, the case of the impeachment proceedings against former President Yoon Suk-yeol serves as a reference.

In its decision on the impeachment trial of former President Yoon Suk-yeol, the Constitutional Court ruled that the first impeachment motion, which did not constitute a quorum during the 418th regular session, and the second impeachment motion, proposed during the 419th extraordinary session, did not violate the principle of one submission per session.

The Constitutional Court distinguished the first impeachment motion as a "vote not constituting a quorum," not a "rejection."

However, it is difficult to directly apply this case as grounds for a re-vote within the same session for the current constitutional amendment bill.

In the case of former President Yoon Suk-yeol's impeachment motion, the first was handled during the 418th regular session, and the second during the 419th extraordinary session.

In other words, what the Constitutional Court affirmed was the possibility of re-proposing the bill in a different session, not the possibility of a re-vote within the same session by simply changing the plenary session number.

Furthermore, while the first and second impeachment motions concerned the same president, their wording and the composition of the grounds for impeachment were partially different.

Limitations of the May 8th Re-vote Argument

Therefore, the Democratic Party's argument for a re-vote is not legally straightforward. The Democratic Party has maintained the position that if the vote does not constitute a quorum due to the People Power Party's abstention, a plenary session can be convened again.

Kim Han-gyu, Deputy Floor Leader for Policy of the Democratic Party of Korea, explained that a plenary session could be convened again on the 8th if the vote does not constitute a quorum, and that for a simultaneous referendum on constitutional amendments with the June 3rd local elections, a vote must be held by the 10th.

The Democratic Party's argument can be summarized as: "A vote not constituting a quorum is not a rejection, so the principle of one submission per session does not apply." This argument has a certain legal basis. This is because the Constitutional Court also did not equate a vote not constituting a quorum with rejection.

However, this argument does not directly lead to "the possibility of re-voting on the same constitutional amendment bill within the same session." What the Constitutional Court confirmed was the possibility of re-proposing the bill in a different session, and the possibility of re-voting on the same bill within the same session cannot yet be considered an established legal precedent.

Here, it is necessary to distinguish between session number and session.

After a vote did not constitute a quorum in the first plenary session of the 435th extraordinary session, convening a second plenary session of the same 435th extraordinary session is not a change in the session. It is merely a change in the plenary session number.

The standard in Article 92 of the National Assembly Act refers to the "session," not the "session number." Therefore, if the plenary session on the 8th is convened within the same 435th extraordinary session, the issue is the "possibility of re-voting within the same session."

This is an area where interpretations of legislative procedures by the Speaker of the National Assembly, the National Assembly Secretariat, and the ruling and opposition parties may conflict, rather than an established legal precedent confirmed by the Constitutional Court's decision.

Conversely, if the intention is to re-convene a new extraordinary session to process it, another issue arises.

Under the National Assembly Act, convening an extraordinary session involves issues related to the notice period.

The proposal to re-propose a new extraordinary session immediately after the vote did not constitute a quorum may conflict with the legal notice period (3 days). Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the May 8th re-vote argument as a matter of re-submission/re-voting within the same session, rather than a re-proposal in a new session.

Two Deadlines, May 10th and June 5th

That said, it is also difficult to definitively conclude that the same constitutional amendment bill has been completely abandoned.

In light of the Constitutional Court's decision, a vote not constituting a quorum is distinguished from rejection. Therefore, the possibility of re-proposing or re-submitting the bill in a different session remains. However, whether it can be re-voted on within the same session by simply changing the plenary session number is a separate issue.

Ultimately, the significance of this vote not constituting a quorum is not "complete abandonment," but rather "a controversy over legislative procedures regarding re-voting within the same session and a significant disruption to the schedule for simultaneous referendums on June 3rd."

What is more important is the schedule.

Even if re-voting within the same session is considered possible, the constitutional amendment bill must pass the National Assembly by May 10th at the latest to be held simultaneously with the June 3rd local elections and a national referendum. The Democratic Party also explained that for the constitutional amendment bill to be put to a national referendum along with the June 3rd local elections, it must be voted on in a plenary session by the 10th.

In summary, there are two deadlines.

First, the political and practical deadline for holding the national referendum simultaneously with the June 3rd local elections is May 10th.

Second, there is a separate constitutional deadline for the National Assembly to approve the announced constitutional amendment bill.

Article 130 of the Constitution stipulates that the National Assembly must vote on a constitutional amendment bill within 60 days of its announcement, and the vote requires the assent of more than two-thirds of the total number of members.

It is confirmed that this constitutional amendment bill was announced on April 7th. The National Election Commission announced that it has officially begun preparations for a national referendum following the announcement of the constitutional amendment bill on April 7th.

Based on this, the 60-day deadline for National Assembly approval of the announced constitutional amendment bill is June 5th. In other words, if it passes May 10th, simultaneous national referendums with the June 3rd local elections will be difficult, but the period for National Assembly approval of the announced constitutional amendment bill itself can be extended until June 5th.

However, the situation changes if the wording is altered or if it is pursued again as a new bill.

A constitutional amendment bill is structured such that the National Assembly approves the bill announced to the public. If the wording changes, it should be considered a new constitutional amendment process, not an extension of the existing announced bill.

In this case, the process of proposal and the President's announcement period of over 20 days must be followed again.

Not Completely Shelved, But Simultaneous Referendum Disrupted

Politically, the argument for re-voting also carries a burden.

The ruling party can continue its offensive, stating, "The People Power Party is repeatedly blocking the constitutional amendment for martial law control."

However, the People Power Party can counter, saying, "Pushing for a re-vote on a constitutional amendment bill that did not constitute a quorum within the same session is itself a constitutional amendment for election purposes."

Especially if the members of the People Power Party are absent from the plenary hall according to their party's directive, the hurdle of the quorum remains even if re-voting is repeated.

In conclusion, the issues following the vote not constituting a quorum for this constitutional amendment bill are not singular.

A vote not constituting a quorum differs from rejection. However, this difference does not immediately guarantee the possibility of a re-vote within the same session. What the Constitutional Court confirmed was the possibility of re-proposing the bill in a different session, and re-voting on the same bill within the same session remains a separate issue in legislative procedures.

Therefore, while the Democratic Party's argument for re-voting has a basis in the fact that "a vote not constituting a quorum is not a rejection," it is difficult to consider it an established legal precedent that "re-voting on the same constitutional amendment bill is possible within the same session."

Moreover, for a simultaneous national referendum with the June 3rd local elections, the National Assembly must complete its approval by May 10th.

Although the constitutional deadline for approving the announced constitutional amendment bill remains until June 5th, the political schedule of a simultaneous national referendum with the local elections is effectively ruined once May 10th passes.