Pausing the president’s trial was the right call

Audio report: written by reporters, read by AI

The Seoul High Court announced on June 9 that it would postpone the retrial of President Lee Jae-myung’s election law violation case, previously scheduled for June 18, without setting a new date. The decision, based on Article 84 of the Constitution, effectively suspends court proceedings during Lee’s term. Article 84 stipulates that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted during their time in office, except in cases of treason or insurrection. The court interpreted this protection as extending beyond indictment to include the trial itself, meaning the case will likely remain dormant until Lee leaves office.

President Lee is currently facing four other criminal trials. Whether presidential immunity includes suspension of trials has been debated in legal circles. Still, it is neither legally nor politically advisable to try an incumbent president — unless the charges involve treason or foreign aggression. Respecting the electorate’s decision and preserving national stability must take precedence. After all, the intent of Article 84 is to ensure that the president can carry out official duties without disruption. Based on that principle, other courts handling Lee’s cases would be justified in following the Seoul High Court’s lead.

The Democratic Party, meanwhile, should refrain from pushing controversial legislation aimed at shielding the president. The party plans to introduce a revision to the Criminal Procedure Act that would codify a suspension of trials for sitting presidents. If the courts independently uphold the president’s immunity, there is no need for a legal amendment. More concerning is the proposed revision to the Public Official Election Act, which would narrow the definition of the offense in question by removing “acts” from the statute. If passed, the revision could result in the dismissal of Lee’s case altogether, raising allegations of a law tailored to benefit a specific individual. Changing the law to accommodate a political leader's legal troubles undermines the rule of law.

Some argue the Constitutional Court should decide whether trials must be suspended. But political tensions of this kind are better addressed through democratic processes and political restraint rather than legal escalation. The opposition must also avoid relying on a court ruling to challenge the election outcome. The constitutional crisis triggered by former President Yoon Suk Yeol’s martial law declaration and impeachment brought deep division to Korean society. It is now time to restore democratic stability through tolerance and compromise. Not every political dispute can be solved through the courts. Broad public consensus and a return to constitutional norms are the surest safeguards for democracy.

Translated from the JoongAng Ilbo using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.