Assembly speaker won't put martial law amendment proposal to a vote, blames PPP for threatened filibuster

National Assembly Speaker Woo Won-shik on Friday declared he will not put to a vote a constitutional amendment bill requiring the president to obtain parliamentary approval before declaring martial law, ending the prospect of a nationwide referendum on the June 3 local elections day. He reached the decision after confirming that the main opposition People Power Party (PPP) would launch a filibuster to boycott the move, expressing "deep regret" that the first constitutional reform in 39 years was thwarted. 

“I truly can't understand this,” Woo said at the National Assembly in Yeouido, western Seoul. “The constitutional amendment cannot pass or fail unless the PPP takes part in the vote. The PPP holds decision-making power. So why are they staging a filibuster when they could simply come in and make a decision?”

If the bill cleared the parliament by Sunday, a nationwide referendum would have taken place at the same time as the June 3 local elections. The referendum takes effect only if approved by a majority of voters.  

"We asked the PPP to listen to public opinion, give the matter deeper consideration and participate," Woo said. "But seeing them respond with a filibuster, I believe further proceedings would be pointless. As speaker, I will not introduce the constitutional amendment bill to the floor. As of today, the procedures required to hold a constitutional referendum on June 3 have been suspended.”  

The ruling Democratic Party-controlled parliament held Friday's plenary session after the amendment failed to clear the National Assembly due to a boycott by the PPP a day earlier. The PPP on Friday was scheduled to start a filibuster to block the bill.

The National Assembly needed a two-thirds majority of 191 votes in favor from the current 286 seats — down from the full 300 after several lawmakers resigned ahead of the June 3 local elections — to pass the bill, which required at least 11 votes from the 106-PPP.

The amendment vote came in response to former President Yoon Suk Yeol's short-lived martial law declaration on Dec. 3, 2024, which led to his impeachment on Dec. 14, 2024, and his ouster on April 4 of last year.  

If the amendment had passed, it would have marked the first constitutional revision in 39 years. The bill not only revises martial law provisions but also incorporates the legacy of the May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement and the 1979 Busan-Masan pro-democracy protests into the Constitution's preamble.  

The May 18 movement of 1980 was a pro-democracy uprising in Gwangju that was violently suppressed under military rule, while the 1979 Busan–Masan pro-democracy protests in Busan and Masan, South Gyeongsang, challenged authoritarian rule and helped trigger broader democratic change in Korea. Including the legacy of these movements in the Constitution’s preamble means formally recognizing them as key historical foundations of Korea’s democracy and embedding their significance and democratic values at the highest level of the country’s legal framework.  

The failure to pass the amendment confirms that constitutional reform requires broader cross-party support. Only three PPP lawmakers — Han Zee-a, Kim Yong-tae and Cho Kyoung-tae — voiced support for the move before the parliament put the amendment to a vote on Thursday, while the party leadership did not endorse the bill. The PPP's success in blocking the amendment ahead of the local elections can also reinforce conservative voter consolidation by framing it as a political achievement of preventing institutional change. 

“The public has clearly demanded constitutional reform, recognizing both its necessity and urgency, and there has been virtually no disagreement over the substance of the amendment," Woo said. “Even with a constitutional amendment that the ruling and opposition parties could have fully agreed on, we still failed to open the door to constitutional reform. I cannot help but express deep regret toward the PPP for derailing constitutional reform for the first time in 39 years by putting party interests ahead of reform and making baseless arguments.”

The Blue House also expressed disappointment over the parliament's failure to pass the amendment. 

“The public called for the lessons of the Dec. 3 illegal martial law declaration to be reflected in the Constitution, and the ruling and opposition parties showed little disagreement over the issue," Blue House spokesperson Kang Yu-jung said in a statement.

“The public will therefore find it difficult to understand why lawmakers opposed even the most minimal constitutional amendment aimed at safeguarding national security and democracy. The constitutional reform discussions we promised to the public must not come to a stop." 

Updated May 8: Added an explanation about what the failure to pass the constitutional amendment means. 

BY PAIK JI-HWAN [[email protected]]