The People Power Party is boycotting a National Assembly plenary session on a constitutional amendment, likely preventing a successful vote [1].

This boycott stalls a significant effort to reshape the legal framework of South Korea's government. The dispute centers on the balance of power between the legislature and the executive, specifically regarding the oversight of emergency martial law and the appointment of special prosecutors.

Lawmakers from the People Power Party have refused to participate in the session to protest the proposed changes [1]. The opposition focuses on provisions that would strengthen the National Assembly's control over the declaration of emergency martial law, as well as ongoing friction over the enactment of special prosecutor laws [1].

Because the party is boycotting the session, there is a high probability that the vote will fail to reach the required quorum [1]. This legislative deadlock leaves approximately 110 non-controversial livelihood bills in limbo [2], as the political stalemate prevents the assembly from processing routine legislation.

Speaker Woo Won-sik has presided over the session amid the absence of the ruling party members [1]. The tension reflects a broader conflict over the legal authority to investigate high-level officials and the limits of presidential power during national emergencies [1].

Reports indicate that 17 members of the People Power Party were specifically involved in the coordinated effort to block the proceedings [1]. The party's refusal to enter the chamber serves as a primary tool to obstruct the constitutional amendment process, as the ruling coalition seeks to prevent the passage of laws they deem overreaches of legislative power [1].

The People Power Party is boycotting a National Assembly plenary session on a constitutional amendment.

The boycott demonstrates a strategic use of quorum requirements to block constitutional changes that would limit executive authority. By tying the constitutional amendment to the contentious special prosecutor laws, the ruling party is attempting to protect the presidency from legislative oversight, even at the cost of delaying routine livelihood legislation.