## Facts

- The President announced in a National Assembly address on October 13, 2003 an intent to hold a national referendum around December 15, 2003 to ask whether the public supported his continuation in office.
- The Constitution authorizes presidential referenda only on “important policies” concerning foreign affairs, national defense, unification, and other national-security matters.
- The proposed referendum’s object was the President’s tenure and political legitimacy, not a specific qualifying policy measure.
- Multiple citizens (and some legislators) filed consolidated constitutional complaints alleging the proposal violated the Constitution and impaired rights associated with constitutionally prescribed democratic governance.
- At the time of decision, the proposal was at the level of announcement and preparation rather than completion of all steps to convene a referendum.

## Issues

1. Whether a referendum asking public confidence in the President’s continuation in office falls within the President’s Article 72 authority to submit “important policies” to a national referendum.
2. Whether a presidentially initiated confidence referendum improperly alters the constitutional structure of representative democracy, fixed presidential tenure, and removal mechanisms (including impeachment), and disrupts separation of powers.
3. Whether the President’s announcement and preparatory conduct constituted justiciable public power that concretely and presently infringed complainants’ constitutional rights, making the constitutional complaints admissible.

## Decision

- The Court determined that a presidential “national confidence referendum” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Article 72’s scope and conflicts with representative democracy and separation of powers.
- The Court nonetheless dismissed/rejected the constitutional complaints on admissibility grounds because the complainants did not show a concrete, present infringement of specific subjective constitutional rights from the announcement and preparations alone.
- A dissent or separate opinion was filed by two justices.

## Legal Principles

- Article 72 permits presidential referenda only on enumerated categories of important national-security-related policies; it does not authorize plebiscitary votes on a President’s tenure or personal legitimacy.
- Constitutional accountability mechanisms for the President are limited to those provided by the Constitution (regular election, fixed term, and impeachment); the executive may not introduce an extra-constitutional confidence vote.
- Representative institutions, including the legislature’s constitutional roles (such as impeachment), may not be bypassed or pressured through an unauthorized direct appeal to the electorate.
- Constitutional complaints require a concrete and present rights infringement; a political announcement or preliminary steps, even if unconstitutional in principle, may be insufficient for individual remedial relief.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a presidentially proposed confidence referendum is unconstitutional because it is not a policy referendum authorized by Article 72 and would distort representative democracy and separation of powers, but it denied relief by dismissing the consolidated constitutional complaints for lack of a concrete, present infringement of individual constitutional rights.


President’s Proposition for National Confidence Referendum Case, 15-2(B) KCCR 350 (Const. Ct. Kor. 2003)