2004 Presidential Impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun

Introduction

The 2004 impeachment of President Roh Moo-hyun (노무현) was the first presidential impeachment in South Korean history. The National Assembly voted to impeach President Roh on March 12, 2004, on charges of election law violations, economic mismanagement, and corruption. The Constitutional Court of Korea, exercising its impeachment jurisdiction for the first time, rejected the impeachment on May 14, 2004, reinstating the President. The case established foundational precedents for the constitutional impeachment process.

Background

President Roh Moo-hyun, a former human rights lawyer, took office in February 2003. His presidency faced early challenges including a sluggish economy, labor strikes, and tensions with the opposition-controlled National Assembly. In early 2004, the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) accused Roh of violating the Act on the Election of Public Officials by publicly expressing support for the pro-government Uri Party during the 2004 general election campaign.

Impeachment Proceedings

National Assembly Vote

On March 12, 2004, the National Assembly voted 193–2 in favor of impeachment. The charges included:

• Violation of the Election Act (political neutrality requirement)
• Economic mismanagement and corruption involving key aides
• Breach of duty in responding to the 2003 Daegu subway fire

Constitutional Court Review

Under Article 111 of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, the Constitutional Court reviews impeachments to determine whether grounds exist for removal. The Court held 13 hearings over two months, examining witnesses and documentary evidence.

Constitutional Court Decision (2004Hun-Na1)

On May 14, 2004, the Constitutional Court rejected the impeachment by a vote of 8–0 (one justice dissented in reasoning).

Key Holdings

• Grounds for impeachment: The Court held that only serious violations of law that undermine public trust in the presidency constitute grounds for removal. Minor legal violations or policy disagreements do not meet the threshold.
• Election law violation: While Roh had technically violated the Election Act, the Court found this did not amount to the “grave violation of law” required for removal.
• Economic mismanagement: The Court declined to review economic policy decisions as political matters beyond constitutional adjudication.
• Standard of proof: The Court required “clear and convincing evidence” of serious violations, setting a high bar for impeachment.

Significance

The 2004 impeachment decision established several enduring principles:

• Impeachment as a constitutional remedy: Impeachment is not a political weapon but a legal mechanism for addressing serious constitutional violations
• High threshold for removal: The Constitutional Court set a stringent standard that has guided subsequent impeachment proceedings
• Political neutrality of the Court: The decision demonstrated the Court’s independence from political pressure

Conclusion

The 2004 Roh Moo-hyun impeachment was a landmark in Korean constitutional law. The Constitutional Court’s rejection of the impeachment reinforced presidential authority while establishing that impeachment is reserved for grave constitutional violations, not policy differences. The case laid the procedural and substantive groundwork for the later 2016–2017 Park Geun-hye impeachment.