Former Constitutional Court Acting President Moon Hyung-bae reflected on a critical legal decision during a recent special lecture, asserting that failing to grant an injunction in a high-profile political case would have completely paralyzed South Korea’s supreme constitutional tribunal during subsequent presidential impeachment proceedings. Speaking to judges and court staff at the Daejeon District Court conference room on September 14, 2026, the jurist detailed the internal considerations behind the court’s actions during past political turmoil.
The core of Moon’s remarks centered on the October 2024 review regarding Korea Communications Commission Chairperson Lee Jin-sook. As the constitutional tribunal faced a looming vacancy crisis with three justices scheduled to retire and the National Assembly deadlocked on appointing successors, the court confronted a strict statutory requirement dictating that at least seven justices must be present to review a case. To prevent the complete collapse of the proceedings for the Lee Jin-sook impeachment trial, the court invoked a unanimous decision to suspend the enforcement of the quorum rule through an injunction requested by Lee.
Recalling the intense political pressure surrounding the decision, Moon noted that critics had attacked the move as a procedural lifeline for a prominent political figure. “A YouTuber claimed, ‘Why are you giving a hint so that a conservative warrior can get a trial? This is a groundless reason to impeach Moon Hyung-bae,'” he recalled telling colleagues at the time. “I asked them, ‘What will you do if a presidential impeachment motion comes in?’ And indeed, the presidential impeachment motion arrived two months later on December 14.”
Defending Institutional Integrity Over Political Friction
Moon emphasized that halting the quorum rule was essential to safeguarding the judicial branch’s fundamental responsibilities. With only six active justices available at critical junctures, he argued that refusing the injunction would have frozen all deliberation and preparatory procedures, effectively crippling the institution. “If we had approached the matter based on personal likes or dislikes toward a specific individual, the Constitutional Court would have tied its own hands and feet,” he stated. “The suspension of constitutional adjudication means the suspension of the Constitution itself, so we made our decision from a long-term perspective.”
Expanding his discourse beyond high-stakes political litigation, Moon addressed the judiciary’s broader role in protecting minority rights, specifically citing a Supreme Court ruling that recognized spousal health insurance coverage for same-sex couples. He argued that minority issues often face legislative stagnation due to political pressures and vote-counting calculations, which explains why comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation remains unpassed in the National Assembly.
Drawing on international comparisons, Moon asserted that judicial intervention is frequently the primary avenue for resolving such legal dilemmas. “Protecting the fundamental rights of minority groups who do not yield votes is the inherent duty and role of the judiciary among state agencies,” he explained. While noting that same-sex marriage requires broader societal consensus, he expressed personal support for extending legal recognitions similar to common-law marriage, such as health insurance or pension benefits, through a “life partnership” framework comparable to models seen overseas.
Future Judicial Outlook and Academic Transition
Since retiring from his judicial post in April last year, Moon has served as a visiting distinguished professor at the KAIST Moon Soul Graduate School of Future Strategy. His September 14 lecture, titled “The Law of No Regrets,” focused on judicial ethics, institutional resilience, and the weighty decisions judges must make under immense public scrutiny.
