Oh, bother.
So Park is going to just hide out for the next six months or so and leave the country in a lurch rather than take her (hopefully metaphorical) lumps and move out of the way so South Korea can hurry up and elect a new leader?
Yeah, I can see why people are starting to set themselves on fire in protest.
edited 10th Jan '17 2:49:25 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised
If she's defacto impeached already can't someone else in the government just order the police to arrest her and bring her to trial?
If she's not bought in forcfully by law enforcement she's going to be bought in forcefully by an angry mob, and that would be very messy.
Oh, bother.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Who knows, it might just come to that. It'd definitely be better for everyone involved if Park did it herself. But if she were the kind of person who could do that, she probably wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
She's still the president (even if impeached), meaning that she cannot be touched by the police or be brought to trial until she leaves office. This has happened before, with corruption charges towards a former president (can't remember which one). He subsequently committed suicide.
edited 10th Jan '17 4:22:52 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
The problem is that the current judges were appointed during the presidencies of Lee Myung-bak and Geun-hye herself.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
In short: by ensuring the police can't arrest a president for trumped-up charges, the law works in such a way that nobody can touch a president, even if they are clearly in a downward spiral that is going very badly and intervention is actually needed, ASAP.
Law. An. Ass.
edited 10th Jan '17 4:29:21 AM by Euodiachloris
That's fine unless they require her cooperation for her to be sacked, in which case it's mind blowingly stupid.
I get a president being immune from normal criminal and civil proceedings, but what the hell is the logic behind them being immune to being forcfully bought to trial for an impeachment.
She has already been impeached, the Constitutional Court will merely decide whether it holds water and whether to make it permanent. So it isn't as much as a trial, but a hearing.
edited 10th Jan '17 5:29:31 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
x3 Are you still making it sound like she can't be removed without her permission? It's clear that this is not the case.
That's not clear at all, multiple people have just said that she currently can't be arrested even though she's been impeached.
Does it matter? The verdict by the Constitutional Court is well underway. If she waives her right to participate in her trial, either the court will proceed without her, or she will be escorted to it by the authority of the prime minister acting as president (remember that her powers have been suspended). If she refuses to step down after the court confirms the impeachment, that's different.
So the PM can order her bought in by force? Because I just asked about that and people said she couldn't be bought in by force.
I don't know the local system so if you could be a bit less condescending when contradicting what others had said that would be nice.
Causing freakouts over sourcing since 2018
I suppose you mean the acting PM?
In any case, I'm not familiar with how the Korean presidential impeachment process works myself - I'm just repeating what news articles are providing as explanations.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot
I said either in the previous post because I don't know if the court can force her to participate but I'm pointing out that it shouldn't preclude the court procedure and possible conviction either way.
I doubt that the South Korea system is so badly designed that a citizen or official can nullify a trial just by refusing to attend. Deciding not to speak at a trial is not the same as nullifying it. I hope that Euodiachloris is aware of that now.
edited 10th Jan '17 10:37:57 AM by Trivialis
I wasn't suggesting they could nullify a trial. I was saying "when a president never was actually stable enough to govern in the first place, but breaks down in a way that's harmful for all concerned, getting them out might have to be a smidge quicker than this for their own physical and mental well-being, let alone those of the wider population getting frustrated enough to immolate themselves or risking Doing Something Stupid™".
The law is an ass when delay = issues just as much as when "we didn't think of this basic thing when drawing up procedure: oops <headless chicken mode amid flying paper and emails>" comes into play. 
edited 10th Jan '17 10:50:23 AM by Euodiachloris
Hmm, it's difficult to figure out. The president is immune to prosecution and arrest until the end of their term, except in the case of insurrection or treason. A case is built during this time, so when the person leaves office they are arrested and tried.
From what I can tell, not even the acting president can override the immunity. Basically, she can only sit in the Blue House for now, unless she resigns which would immediately take away her immunity. Her options are not good.
EDIT:
Some news on the proceedings against President Park
Park legal team continues to link her fall to North Korea
This is the second time this month that the impeached President’s legal representation has linked her fall with North Korea. The first came last week, when one of Park’s attorneys accused “followers of Juche ideology” of being behind the protests against her.
“The Blue House is the residence and working place for the President… and is an important national monument where enemy attacks are expected,” a document, presented to Constitutional Court by Park’s team, said during the President’s third impeachment hearing.
“North Korea has previously attempted to conduct an armed invasion of Blue House,” it read, referring to the Blue House raid of 1968, when 31 North Korean soldiers unsuccessfully tried to assassinate Park Chung-hee – the former President and Park’s father.
The attorneys added that “North Korea [has] continued to comment about ‘striking Blue House’ to threaten (Park).”
The President’s whereabouts are a state secret, and no country or government would reveal them, the document read.
But they said that widespread rumors about the President’s missing seven hours have made it necessary to explain them to the court, to “prevent the people from being dazzled and agitated by the rumors.”
Resulting in the death of over three hundred people, mostly young students, the Sewol Ferry Disaster caused fury among the South Korean public, and the families of the deceased have continuously demanded to know what President Park did during her missing hours.
Over 1000 days since the day of the disaster, no full explanation has been given to the public.
The attempt to link North Korea to Park’s disappearance prompted criticism from South Korea’s opposition.
“The inside of Blue House is already revealed to the public… and should not be classified as a security facility,” Kim Hong-gul, the youngest son of the late President Kim Dae-jung and a Minjoo Party politician, said.
edited 10th Jan '17 11:24:31 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
But she isn't governing, the prime minister is right now. And as for "why don't they get rid of her now instead of waiting for the end of the trial", well, that's what a fair trial is? You don't officially pronounce someone guilty until the court with legal authority convicts the person.
In order to remove an official, whether by impeachment or vote of no confidence, you need to have the body empowered to do so (in this case, the Constitutional Court), do so. It has not yet finished doing so, simply put.
So she hasn't actually been successfully impeached yet?
Would her term not end immediately if she was successfully impeached? Also is it possible that she could be charged with treason considering that she leaked state secrets on purpose?
edited 10th Jan '17 1:29:08 PM by Silasw
The definition of impeachment is a formal accusation against an official, rather than conviction. It's an act of prosecution, not judgment.
It's a two-step process here. The parliament enacts impeachment, which in the case of South Korea, also provisionally suspends the powers of the official. The court rules on the impeachment via a conviction or acquittal verdict. Currently South Korea is done with step one.
edited 10th Jan '17 3:09:47 PM by Trivialis
The Other Wiki says
In the Constitutional Court Act of 1988, The Constitutional Court must pronounce the final decision within 180 days after it receives any case for adjudication, including impeachment cases. If the respondent has already left office before the pronouncement of the decision, the case is dismissed. The Impeachment also included in this cases.[2]
The last time a South Korean president had been impeached was in 2004, when Roh Moo-hyun was impeached by parliament and was suspended from duties for two months. In that case, the Constitutional Court of Korea overturned the impeachment and restored Roh to power.[3] However, the South Korean public was by and large in support of Roh.[4] Despite the infrequency of impeachment, every presidency since the start of South Korea's democracy has ended in some form of scandal.[5]
So no, she will be completely powerless, but still in office. I can't find the definition of treason anywhere, but judging from a previous case, it's similar to many other countries in the sense that you have to be working for an enemy against the state (with North Korea in this case). Otherwise it isn't treason.
edited 11th Jan '17 3:42:28 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
I'd read "shall not extend beyond removal of public office" to mean that if the impeachment is confirmed by the court she will be removed from office and thus loose her immunity from criminal prosecution. So I'm not convinced.
EDIT: Scratch that, another source says that she can be removed permanently by the Constitutional Court and another election will have to be held in 60 days. Until the end of the adjudication (max. 180 days), she has no powers.
But yeah, the challenge now is whether the court will vote against her or not.
edited 11th Jan '17 12:13:03 PM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
Moving on to something else. Should China Be Labeled a Currency Manipulator?
edited 11th Jan '17 1:05:27 PM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
My Hair Provides Affordable Healthcare
The plot thickens.
NHK: Arrest warrant requested for Samsung heir
The prosecutors say Samsung Group paid bribes of about 36 million dollars to 2 foundations closely linked to the president's confidante Choi Soon-sil. They're accusing Lee Jae-yong, Vice Chairman of Samsung Electronics, of bribery and embezzlement.
The prosecutors also say they can prove that the President and Choi shared the benefits.
The request for the warrant came after the prosecutors questioned Lee for 22 hours last week. They suspect that he asked for support from the presidential office for a merger of two firms in Samsung group and provided the funds in return.
South Korean media were skeptical about the need to arrest Lee, saying there is no risk of him escaping.
The prosecutors say they took into account the possible economic impact of their action but concluded that justice is more important.
Ah, I see.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele