[Civil Diplomatic Letter No. 5]
Unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Amendment Procedure of the Republic of Korea and the Crisis of the Rule of Law
대한민국헌법 개정 절차의 위헌성과 법치주의 위기
To the respected leaders of the international community and members of civil society,
The current attempt to amend the Constitution in the Republic of Korea involves serious procedural violations and greatly threatens the principles of liberal democracy and the rule of law.
Therefore, we deliver this letter with deep concern regarding the constitutional amendment procedure now underway in Korea, in light of the supreme value of human dignity.
- Procedural Problems
of the Constitutional Amendment
On May 7, 2026, the National Assembly of Korea introduced the constitutional amendment bill in its plenary session. However, due to the absence of the People Power Party in the vote, the quorum was not met and the vote was invalid.
Nevertheless, the Speaker of the National Assembly announced a re-vote, which is an act that undermines the strict procedural requirements set by the Constitution and the principle of the rule of law, causing concern in the international community.
The Constitution of the Republic of Korea, as the supreme norm of the state, strictly regulates the amendment procedure in Articles 128 to 130.
Yet the current attempt contains decisive unconstitutional and unlawful defects as follows:
- Lack of Quorum and Loss of Procedural Legitimacy
Article 130(1) of the Constitution requires the approval of two-thirds of all members of the National Assembly for a constitutional amendment. This presupposes national consensus and overwhelming bipartisan agreement. However, forcing the bill despite the absence of the People Power Party and the lack of quorum on May 7 constitutes procedural arbitrariness that ignores the spirit of dialogue and compromise required by the Constitution.
- Violation of the Principle of “One-time Rejection” and Abuse of the Speaker’s Authority
Even though the vote was invalid due to lack of quorum, the Speaker declared that another plenary session would be held the next day for a re-vote. This is highly likely to violate Article 92 of the National Assembly Act, which stipulates the principle of “one-time rejection.” Attempting to handle such a grave matter as constitutional amendment by repeated voting is an unconstitutional idea that undermines the stability of the legal order and betrays the Speaker’s duty of political neutrality.
Principle of One-time Rejection(一事不再議 原則): Article 92 of the National Assembly Act provides that once a bill is rejected, it cannot be reintroduced in the same session. Although there is academic debate on whether “rejection” and “invalid vote” have the same effect, practically, reintroducing a bill that failed to meet quorum in the same session immediately is highly likely to violate this principle. This principle is designed to ensure stability and legal certainty in parliamentary decisions. Its violation would allow decisions to be endlessly repeated for political convenience, thereby destroying constitutional legitimacy.
- Absence of National Deliberation and Violation of the Right to Know
The 20-day public notice period required by Article 129 of the Constitution is not a mere formality. It is a deliberation period for the people to examine the dangerous clauses and systemic changes in the amendment. However, this amendment has been rushed to match the local election schedule, infringing upon the people’s right to know. Especially, clauses such as “residents’ self-governing cell organization” that could shake the foundation of the national system have been pushed without sufficient social debate. This is a political maneuver that undermines the solemnity of the Constitution.
- Distortion of the Requirements for National Referendum
If a national referendum is pursued without valid parliamentary approval, it would violate Article 130 of the Constitution. This would render the referendum itself unconstitutional and create a dangerous precedent that undermines democratic order.
- Instrumentalization of Constitutional Amendment and Risk of Systemic Destruction
Using constitutional amendment as a tool for the success of specific elections or partisan advantage is a violation that undermines the solemnity of the Constitution. In particular, under the pretext of “step-by-step amendment,” destroying systemic coherence and laying the foundation for political control through grassroots organizations is contrary to the people’s will to safeguard liberal democratic order.
- Conclusion
This attempt to handle the constitutional amendment bill goes beyond mere political conflict. It leaves a dangerous precedent in which the National Assembly, which should be the last bastion of constitutional defense, itself nullifies constitutional procedure.
An amendment that has lost procedural legitimacy can never gain national consent, and will lead to severe legal and social confusion, including possible jurisdictional disputes before the Constitutional Court.
We therefore call upon the international community and vigilant citizens to pay close attention and stand in solidarity, so that the liberal democracy and rule of law that the Republic of Korea has upheld will not be undermined by the partisan interests of certain forces.
Ⅱ. Unconstitutional Elements
of the Amendment Bill
The constitutional amendment currently under discussion in the Republic of Korea contains several unconstitutional elements that may shake the very foundations of the nation’s identity—liberal democracy and the free market order.
The Constitution is the supreme norm that guarantees the freedom and rights of all citizens, transcending the political interests of any particular regime or generation.
However, this amendment poses a grave risk of undermining that essence, and it is a matter that deserves the close attention of the international community and civil society.
- Undermining the Principle of Separation of Powers and Weakening National Security Capacity
The strengthening of parliamentary authority over martial law disrupts the balance of separation of powers.
By introducing parliamentary approval for the declaration of martial law and elevating the request for termination into a binding power, the amendment excessively expands legislative authority and restricts the executive’s inherent powers.
It mandates prior and subsequent parliamentary approval of the President’s declaration of martial law, and stipulates automatic nullification if approval is not obtained within 48 hours.
This distorts the constitutional principle of “checks and balances” and effectively neutralizes the executive’s emergency response powers.
In actual national emergencies such as war or large-scale terrorism, delays or partisan conflict in parliamentary approval could automatically terminate martial law, thereby endangering national security.
Legislative domination of executive emergency powers directly denies the separation of powers, the core of liberal democracy, and threatens national stability and the foundations of the market economy.
Checks and balances are essential, but without the survival of the state itself, such balance is an empty principle.
- Value Bias in the Constitutional Preamble and Weakening of National Unity
The Constitution defines national identity and serves as the supreme norm binding all citizens together.
Inserting specific historical events led by particular political forces into the preamble risks alienating groups with differing views.
The preamble must embody universal principles that transcend eras and regimes, expressing founding ideals and fundamental principles with timeless universality.
Selective inclusion of one faction’s political experiences reduces the Constitution to a product of political compromise, invites disputes over fairness with other historical achievements such as industrialization, and undermines national unity.
Explicitly naming specific events in the preamble weakens its universality and neutrality.
History gains vitality through ongoing interpretation and debate; forcing it into legal norms invites criticism of “judicialization” or “politicization” of history.
The amendment seeks to add the Busan–Masan Democratic Uprising (Buma Incident) and the Gwangju May 18 Democratic Movement to the preamble. Yet directly enshrining such events risks demands to add other historical episodes, reducing the preamble to a political compromise and weakening national cohesion.
Defining previous regimes solely as “evils to be liquidated” denies the historical contributions of generations who devoted themselves to nation-building, and may appear as retaliatory narration rather than reconciliation with the past.
Such attempts monopolize the value of “democracy” and stigmatize opponents as “anti-democratic” or “corrupt,” revealing a strong political intent.
Evaluation of historical events should remain in the realm of academic research and public debate, not constitutional compulsion. The Constitution must embody principles beyond the experiences of one generation, maintaining universality and neutrality consistent with the plural values of liberal democracy.
- Transition from Market Economy Order to State-Controlled Planned Economy
Article 123 of the amendment, which proclaims “equal enjoyment of quality of life,” cloaks a step-by-step threat to the foundations of the market economy under the rhetoric of promoting public welfare.
The process may distort Korea’s economic system as follows:
Stage 1: Comprehensive State Obligations (Justification for Market Intervention)
By constitutionalizing state obligations in core private economic areas such as employment, housing, and healthcare, the government gains unlimited legal grounds to intervene in resource allocation. This marks the starting point of state intrusion into the autonomous sphere of the market.
Stage 2: Elimination of Private Autonomy (Decline of Economic Vitality)
State intervention in corporate location, investment decisions, and employment policies under the pretext of fulfilling obligations will stifle private creativity and competitiveness. Property rights and economic freedom will be hollowed out as regulation and allocation replace autonomous competition.
Stage 3: Entrenchment of Socialist Planned Economy (Systemic Transformation)
Repeated compulsory allocation of state finances to populist welfare and infrastructure will erode the spontaneous market order. Excessive state control of economic indicators will entrench a socialist planned economy, reducing efficiency and leading to irreversible decline in national competitiveness.
- Strategic Unconstitutionality of Step-by-Step Amendment
The “step-by-step amendment” approach—modifying only parts deemed agreeable—undermines constitutional coherence and integrity.
The Constitution must maintain consistent logic and structure from preamble to annex; partial amendments risk contradictions among provisions and disorder in the legal system.
Linking amendment efforts to local elections reduces the Constitution to a political event, distorting public deliberation and violating its solemnity.
Without fundamental reflection on the structure of power, piecemeal revision will cause irreparable confusion in the national legal order.
- Conclusion
This amendment wears the outer garment of democracy but in substance dismantles separation of powers, suppresses market autonomy, and destabilizes the national system through grassroots organizational control.
Such attempts undermine the solemnity of the Constitution and set a dangerous precedent that shakes democratic order.
We therefore inform the international community of this situation, in which Korea’s liberal democracy is being eroded by sophisticated legal maneuvers, and call for solidarity in defense of the rule of law.
Ⅲ. Article 123 of the Amendment Bill and the Threat of Systemic Subversion through Grassroots Organization Linked to the Residents’ Autonomy Basic Law
Article 123(2) of the constitutional amendment bill in the Republic of Korea outwardly proclaims “balanced regional development,” but in substance it seeks to elevate the unconstitutional ideology of the previously controversial Residents’ Autonomy Basic Law into the highest constitutional norm.
That law institutionalizes residents’ councils at the level of local living zones, strengthening their authority in ways that could lead to cellular organization affecting the entire operation of the state.
This carries the grave risk of becoming a tool for a “silent constitutional coup,” eroding representative democracy and the foundations of the market economy from below.
- Abuse of Resident Rights and Neutralization of Representative Democracy
The amendment’s phrase “equal enjoyment of opportunities regardless of residence” echoes the toxic clause of the Residents’ Autonomy Basic Law, which sought to grant resident rights not only to inhabitants but also to workers and students in the area.
If the Constitution supports this, certain political forces could manipulate population movement or secure lists to systematically dominate local decision-making.
This would allow “residents’ councils,” informal organizations, to exercise real authority above constitutionally recognized local assemblies and elected officials, thereby undermining accountability through elections and neutralizing representative democracy.
Through abuse of resident rights, major local decisions could be captured by partisan interests, uprooting the foundations of electoral responsibility.
- Risk of Information Control and Grassroots Surveillance System (Five-Household Responsibility System)
If residents’ councils are constitutionally empowered to collect personal information at the local level and receive direct administrative and financial support from the state, they could transform into instruments of social control.
This would create a cellular surveillance system managing citizens’ daily lives, reminiscent of North Korea’s “Five-Household Responsibility System.”
Such information control and grassroots organization could form independent power blocs apart from the central government, destabilizing the national governance system.
- Leftward Shift of State Infrastructure and Paralysis of Governance
If constitutional grounds are established for such organizations, grassroots structures would entrench ideological orientation regardless of changes in government.
If residents’ councils are captured by particular political forces, they could obstruct or distort central government policy implementation.
Even under a conservative administration, grassroots organizations could resist or sabotage policy execution, producing a “leftward shift of state infrastructure” and paralyzing governance.
This weakens the authority of the National Assembly and the President, undermining the stability of national administration.
Ultimately, under the guise of “replaceable power,” liberal democratic principles would be neutralized, and entrenched ideological structures would be formed to secure permanent rule for certain factions.
- Excessive State Intervention and Weakening of Market Principles
The amendment imposes broad obligations on the state to “build living infrastructure” and “reduce disparities.”
This provides grounds for state control over resource allocation in private sectors such as employment, education, and healthcare, weakening both market autonomy and local self-government while excessively strengthening central authority.
Constitutionalizing “state obligations over all aspects of daily life” amounts to declaring state control over private resource distribution.
Prioritizing “mechanical equality” over efficient allocation will extinguish private creativity and foster a “bureaucratic economy” dependent solely on state budgets.
As seen in Korea’s 2024 healthcare policy case, when the state assumes constitutional responsibility for all aspects of life, private autonomy is eroded and severe social disorder ensues.
- Conclusion
Article 123(2) of the amendment bill is not a mere clause on regional development.
In reality, it inserts an uncontrolled “third power” (residents’ councils) between central authority and local administration, constituting a systemic subversion attempt.
Under the banner of “equal quality of life,” channeling national budgets into politically colored organizations to cultivate partisan forces is a manifestly unconstitutional act.
We sternly criticize this dangerous attempt to erode individual freedom and representative democracy from within, and we call upon the people to make a decisive stand for the defense of the rule of law.
Ⅳ. Conclusion
In conclusion, although the amendment bill claims to maintain the basic framework of liberal democracy, it moves in the direction of expanding state intervention, which requires critical examination.
In particular, the provisions concentrating martial law authority in the National Assembly and expanding the state’s obligation to build living infrastructure may conflict with the liberal democratic free market order.
Furthermore, Article 123, while outwardly advocating regional equity and quality of life, in reality provides constitutional grounds for the Residents’ Autonomy Basic Law, thereby carrying the risk of excessive expansion of state intervention.
This could lead to the cellular organization of residents’ councils, strengthening information control and surveillance systems, and opening the door to political abuse.
Therefore, these provisions can be evaluated as extremely dangerous elements that weaken the identity of the Republic of Korea as a liberal democracy and a market economy, and create a structure in which state power excessively intervenes in all aspects of citizens’ lives.
The Constitution must remain the fundamental framework that guarantees the freedom and rights of the people. Amending it in a way that expands concentration of power and state intervention for specific political purposes cannot avoid criticism as a grave threat to Korea’s national identity.
We therefore call upon the international community and global civil society to remain vigilant and to stand in solidarity with the Korean people in defending constitutionalism, liberal democracy, and the rule of law.
Attachment:
Constitutional Amendment Bill of the Republic of Korea
May 8, 2026
Constitution Guardians of Korea (CGA)
Representative: Park Sang-gu
Institute for National Strength
Director: Kim Dae-heung
And all patriotic citizens of the Republic of Korea
Attachment:
Constitutional Amendment of the Republic of Korea
Statement of Reasons
Constitutional amendment is the act of realizing the will of the people through the Constitution and shaping the path of their lives. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea was enacted in 1948 and has since undergone nine amendments until 1987. Thirty-nine years have passed since the last amendment. The times have changed greatly, and the living environment of the people has completely transformed. Public awareness of constitutional values and rights has also risen significantly.
Although demands for amendment have long been discussed, they have not been realized. The December 3 emergency martial law reminded society of the importance of the Constitution. The unconstitutional and unlawful martial law was lifted through the will of the people and the National Assembly, but the enormous damage had to be borne by the people. National pride and democracy were undermined, and politics, diplomacy, society, and the economy suffered great shocks. The people endured painful hardship to overcome the crisis. Such an event must never happen again.
The current Constitution stipulates the requirements and procedures for martial law, but lacks safeguards against unconstitutional attempts. If martial law forces block the National Assembly or arrest and detain many members, the Assembly’s procedure to demand termination of martial law could be nullified. The December 3 martial law was overcome by the people’s resistance and the Assembly’s swift response, but this cannot serve as a fundamental safeguard. Unconstitutional martial law must be prevented at its root. For this reason, the Assembly’s right to demand termination must be strengthened into a binding power, and an approval requirement must be introduced. This is to erect an institutional barrier of democracy within the Constitution.
Alongside institutional measures, the constitutional values of democracy must be further consolidated. Korean democracy has developed by proving that all power comes from the people. Through countless sacrifices, it has shown that no power can prevail against the people. This noble history runs from the April 19 Revolution to the Busan–Masan Democratic Uprising and the May 18 Democratic Movement. The Busan–Masan Uprising, which toppled the Yushin dictatorship, together with May 18, became a watershed of democratization. The May 18 Democratic Movement was the first in modern Korean history to be inscribed as a UNESCO World Documentary Heritage, recognized globally for its universal value. To enshrine its spirit in the Constitution is to honor the historical legitimacy of Korean democracy.
Meanwhile, the shadows of low birthrate and aging deepen. More than half of basic local governments are classified as extinction-risk areas, while over half of the population is concentrated in certain regions. Worsening regional imbalance manifests in disparities of education, healthcare, culture, employment, and opportunities depending on residence. This is an urgent national task that can no longer be neglected.
On June 3, 2026, nationwide local elections are scheduled. Holding the constitutional referendum together with the local elections will increase public participation and reduce costs. Past amendment attempts failed because they sought comprehensive revision all at once. Repeating this vicious cycle must be avoided. Step-by-step amendment, beginning with areas of consensus, is the way to succeed. Opening the door to amendment is most important, and the upcoming local elections provide the opportunity.
The National Assembly has long prepared for amendment. A recent survey of 12,000 citizens aged 18 and older confirmed broad public consensus: 68.3% supported amendment. Support for enshrining democratization movements in the preamble (59.8%) was more than double opposition (26.7%). Strengthening parliamentary control over martial law gained 77.5% support, and specifying the state’s duty to reduce regional disparities and promote balanced development gained 83.0%. Furthermore, 69.5% supported step-by-step amendment focused on agreed agendas.
Therefore, this amendment will be pursued as a step-by-step revision centered on issues of broad consensus without partisan disagreement. What remains is the decision and execution to embody the people’s will in the Constitution.
Main Points
- Koreanization of the Constitution’s Title (Article Title)
Change “大韓民國憲法” to “대한민국헌법.”
- Inclusion of Major Democratization Movements in the Preamble (Preamble Amendment)
Specify in the preamble the succession of the democratic ideals of the Busan–Masan Democratic Uprising and the May 18 Democratic Movement.
- Strengthening Parliamentary Control over Martial Law (Article 77, Paragraphs 4 and 5)
Require the President to immediately notify and obtain approval from the National Assembly upon declaring martial law. If approval is denied or not obtained within 48 hours, martial law immediately loses effect. If the Assembly resolves to terminate martial law, it immediately loses effect.
- State Duty to Reduce Regional Disparities and Promote Balanced Development (Article 123, Paragraph 2)
Specify the state’s duty to ensure all citizens enjoy equal quality of life and opportunities regardless of residence, by fostering regional economies and building living infrastructure including education, healthcare, culture, employment, housing, and transportation.
- Effective Date and Transitional Measures (Supplementary Provisions, Articles 1 and 2)
The amendment takes effect upon promulgation, with transitional measures provided.
Draft Amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea
Change the title “大韓民國憲法” to “대한민국헌법.”
In the preamble, change “4·19 민주이념” to “the democratic ideals of the April 19 Revolution, the Busan–Masan Democratic Uprising, and the May 18 Democratic Movement.”
Change “8차” to “9차” and “1987년 10월 29일” to “2026년 ○월 ○일.”
Amend Article 77, Paragraphs 4 and 5:
④ When martial law is declared, the President must immediately notify the National Assembly and obtain approval. If approval is denied or not obtained within 48 hours, martial law immediately loses effect.
⑤ If the National Assembly resolves termination of martial law by majority vote, martial law immediately loses effect.
Amend Article 123, Paragraph 2:
② The state has the duty to foster regional economies and build living infrastructure so that all citizens, regardless of residence, may enjoy equal quality of life and opportunities, thereby reducing regional disparities and promoting balanced development.
Supplementary Provisions:
Article 1: This Constitution takes effect upon promulgation.
Article 2: (1) Existing laws and treaties remain effective unless they conflict with this Constitution.
(2) Acts and measures valid under the previous Constitution are deemed valid under this Constitution.
