# Crossroads of Power-Sharing and Judicial Politics: Drawing the Line on Constitutional Reform > Explore the political fallout of the Sept. 18 presidential address and the sudden resignation of the Justice Minister nominee amid rising tensions. Published: 2026-09-19T12:05:52.098Z Updated: 2026-09-19T12:05:52.098Z URL: /en/article/lee-jaemyung-press-conf-2026 # A High-Stakes Bid to Restore Trust Meets Cabinet Vetting Turmoil: The Complex Aftermath of the September 18 Presidential Press Conference In the autumn of 2026, South Korea’s political landscape stands at a critical crossroads, fraught with acute governance challenges. Amid dropping approval ratings and growing public disillusionment, the President convened a national press conference, putting forward major initiatives to restructure presidential authority and defuse lingering judicial controversies. Yet, just a day later, the sudden downfall of a key cabinet nominee plunged the political arena back into a fierce maelstrom. As the presidential office’s bold gamble—predicated on institutional restraint and historic constitutional commitments—collides with unexpected personnel vetting failures, the ruling and opposition blocs are barreling toward an uncompromising showdown. This crisis serves as a crucial litmus test that extends far beyond tactical political calculations, directly impacting the trajectory of constitutional reform and the potential restoration of judicial integrity. This analysis examines the context behind the September 18 national press conference, the ramifications of Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won's withdrawal, and the multifaceted implications shaping the road ahead. --- ## Background: Declining Approval Ratings and the High-Stakes September 18 Press Conference On September 18, 2026, President Lee Jae-myung held a national press conference at the Blue House State Guest House (*Yeongbingwan*). Addressing the downward trend in presidential approval ratings and mounting public fatigue reflected in recent polls, the President bowed his head, stating, "It is entirely due to my own shortcomings." Held at a moment of peak urgency for state governance reform, the conference went beyond a mere expression of regret—it was viewed as a high-stakes, direct gambit to regain the political initiative. The crux of the address was putting an end to the lingering controversy surrounding constitutional amendments for consecutive presidential terms, a narrative persistently raised by the opposition. President Lee firmly stated, "I have no intention whatsoever to seek a consecutive term," preemptively shutting down any suspicions of an attempt to cling to power. This was an explicit move to neutralize the opposition’s framing that pushing for a four-year, two-term presidency was merely a stepping stone for extended rule. Concurrently, a breakthrough stance was announced regarding the "special prosecutor for alleged prosecutorial fabrication"—a long-standing flashpoint in the judicial standoff. While reiterating the necessity of the special counsel probe, President Lee formally requested the removal of a contentious provision in the ruling party's bill that would have granted the special prosecutor authority to dismiss ongoing indictments. The clause had sparked intense constitutional debate, with critics arguing that granting such dismissal authority infringed on judicial power and served as "bulletproof legislation" designed to wipe away the President's personal legal trials. President Lee’s request to drop the indictment-dismissal clause was a calculated strategic move to dismantle allegations of "erasing past trials" harbored by the judiciary and the opposition, while appealing to moderate voters. By visibly embracing the core principles of the rule of law, the administration sought to break the political deadlock and reclaim the moral high ground. --- ## Key Flashpoint: The Fall of Justice Minister Nominee Kim Seung-won and the Vetting System Crisis However, the administration’s drive to stabilize the political landscape hit a massive reef in less than twenty-four hours. On September 19, the day following the press conference, Justice Minister nominee Kim Seung-won unexpectedly announced his voluntary withdrawal at the National Assembly's press center. With the very official tapped to lead the nation's justice administration engulfed in escalating ethical and legal controversies, the presidential reform drive met immediate and severe blowback. Allegations surrounding Kim unfolded across three main fronts: 1. **Allegations of Improper Solicitation**: Accusations that he solicited expedited approval for clinical trials of a new drug for private gain—an issue striking directly at public integrity that became a prime target for the opposition. 2. **Past Leadership in Advocacy Coalitions**: His history of serving as head of an initiative demanding the dismissal of indictments against President Lee. This directly contradicted the President's recent decision to renounce indictment-dismissal powers, fueling acute concerns within and outside the legal community regarding the institutional neutrality of the Ministry of Justice. 3. **Controversial Petitions**: Public sentiment chilled further upon revelations that he had submitted a petition in defense of a former aide accused of sexual harassment. At his resignation briefing, Kim stated his reason for stepping down: "Watching the President's press conference, I resolved that I must not place any further burden on the administration." Yet even in his departure, he targeted former People Power Party leader Han Dong-hoon, fiercely protesting, "I will ensure that the full scope of the politicized prosecution's targeted investigations and illegal leaks of confidential investigative files are brought to light." While meant to frame the issue as an ongoing clash between the administration and the prosecution, it failed to deflect mounting scrutiny over the catastrophic failure in vetting. What makes this setback particularly damaging is that it follows the recent withdrawal of Yong Hye-in, nominee for Minister of Gender Equality and Family, marking a consecutive collapse of senior cabinet appointments. With top-tier nominees repeatedly failing to clear the legislative hurdle, calls for accountability targeting the presidential civil affairs and personnel vetting apparatus are now spreading even within ruling party ranks. --- ## Multi-Angle Analysis: Tactical Retreat or Genuine Commitment to Power-Sharing? The September 18 press conference and the subsequent resignation of the cabinet nominee have yielded sharply divergent interpretations across the political spectrum. Critics and the opposition bloc have dismissed the measures as a self-congratulatory face-saving tactic devoid of any fundamental course correction in governance. Regarding Kim’s withdrawal, the opposition maintains that "resignation is not the end; now is the time for a special counsel investigation and formal prosecution," launching a full-scale offensive demanding thorough investigations into all allegations, including the clinical trial solicitation. Tensions with the judiciary present another major point of contention. Although the presidential office and the ruling party are highlighting their commitment to judicial normalization by proceeding with the formal appointment of Supreme Court Justice Kim Sung-soo, Supreme Court Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae’s continuous, vocal emphasis on the sacrosanct nature of judicial independence poses a substantial burden. Prevailing analysis suggests that the deep-seated mistrust accumulated within the judiciary over the special prosecutor drive and the indictment-dismissal controversy cannot be assuaged simply by stripping out a single legislative clause. On the other hand, a substantial body of political analysis views the President's decisions through a constructive institutional lens. Proponents argue that formally ruling out a consecutive term and dropping the indictment-dismissal clause is more than a mere tactical retreat. Instead, it is interpreted as a sincere effort to transcend the limitations of the "imperial presidency" entrenched since the 1987 Constitutional Framework, proactively setting the stage for a National Assembly-led decentralized power structure. Under this interpretation, by preemptively relinquishing mechanisms that could be construed as seeking judicial favoritism, the President secured the moral legitimacy and political leverage necessary for the ruling bloc to negotiate a power-sharing constitutional revision. Rather than staying trapped in a defensive posture, the President sought to recast himself as an enabler of constitutional reform. --- ## Outlook: The Fraught Path of Judicial Confrontation and Power-Sharing Constitutional Reform Looking ahead, South Korean politics is poised to navigate a murky, volatile landscape where structural talks on power-sharing constitutional reform intertwine with intensifying legal probes and vetting controversies. First, the constitutional debate exposes a yawning chasm between lofty ideals and realpolitik. Although President Lee unlocked the door by renouncing consecutive terms, reaching a cross-party consensus on substantive power dispersion—such as a semi-presidential (dual-executive) system or a parliamentary cabinet system—remains elusive. Current deliberations are largely confined to the political gesture of "ruling out consecutive terms" rather than hashing out concrete institutional blueprints. With both ruling and opposition parties calculating the timing and format of power division according to their own electoral interests, securing the necessary two-thirds parliamentary supermajority will be an uphill struggle. Second, the erosion of governance momentum caused by repeated vetting lapses will linger. While Kim's voluntary withdrawal extinguished an immediate fire, the opposition's unrelenting offensive will keep the administration under siege. Given that the credibility of the presidential vetting system has suffered a severe blow following back-to-back collapses, the threshold for confirmation hearings for future nominees will be significantly higher. Ultimately, the success of the administration as it heads into the mid-term phase hinges on minimizing judicial conflict while proving through consistent action the commitment to executive restraint announced on September 18. Whether the administration can restore a rule-of-law consensus that respects the independence of the judiciary underscored by Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae, and navigate past intense partisan crossfire to accomplish historic constitutional reform, places South Korea’s governance at a critical crossroads. ## Claims ## Forecasts - 80% — 국회 법사위 내 '공소취소 권한 삭제' 특검법 수정안 처리 (2026년 10월 중순). Signal: 대통령의 공개 삭제 요청에 따라 여당 원내지도부가 법사위 대안 법안에서 공소취소 조항을 공식 배제하는지 여부 - 70% — 야권의 김승원 전 후보자 대상 '신약 승인 청탁' 상설특검 또는 국정조사 발의 (2026년 10월 말). Signal: 국민의힘 등 보수 야권 지도부의 특검법안 공동 발의 및 국회 본회의 부의 추진 - 35% — 여야 공식 헌법개정특별위원회(개헌특위) 연내 합의 구성 (2026년 12월 말). Signal: 사법 리스크 공방 격화로 권력 분점 방식(4년 중임제 vs 분권형 이원집정부제)에 대한 여야 간 합의 불발 가능성 ## Sources - [[뉴스특보] 오늘 이 대통령 기자회견…‘산적한 현안’ 해법은 - v.daum.net](https://v.daum.net/) — v.daum.net, 2026-09-19 - [野, 4년 중임 대통령제 띄운 靑에 "국면 전환용 개헌 시도 중단하라" - 조선일보](https://www.chosun.com/) — 조선일보, 2026-09-19 - [[옴부즈맨 평론] 통치 권력의 법치 상해(傷害)와 신뢰의 파산, 이재명 정부 국정 난맥상의 구조적 요인 분석과 치유 방안을 모색한다. - 옴부즈맨뉴스](http://www.ombudsmannews.com/) — 옴부즈맨뉴스, 2026-09-19 - [국민의힘 장동혁·정점식, “이재명 정권 국정 파탄 총력 비판” - 브레이크뉴스](https://www.breaknews.com/) — 브레이크뉴스, 2026-09-19 - [‘명픽’ 조정식 “현직 대통령 연임, 국민의 선택 문제” - 조선비즈 - Chosunbiz](https://biz.chosun.com/) — Chosunbiz, 2026-09-19