The Constitutional Court of Korea said Wednesday that it had requested President Yoon Suk Yeol submit the minutes of the Cabinet meeting held just prior to the Dec. 3 martial law declaration, as well as other evidence, by Dec. 24.

The court, which is tasked with upholding or overturning Yoon’s impeachment, told the press that it sent an email to Yoon on Tuesday regarding the order and asked him to submit a copy of the martial law decree, a list of evidence and a plan to prove the case against his impeachment.

Lee Jin, director general for the Constitutional Court’s Public Information Office, told the press that the court also sent a copy of the order via post the same morning on the need to directly send it to Yoon, not through the secretariat.

Lee added that another order for Yoon to submit a statement on the impeachment bill and other trial-related documents, sent Monday, still had not been received by Yoon. The court asked him to reply within seven days.

“We sent two copies to Yoon -- one to the presidential office and one to his residence -- but both failed to be delivered because the presidential secret service refused to deliver them. The one sent to his house failed to be delivered due to the absence of a recipient, according to the post office,” Lee said during a press briefing held at the Constitutional Court in Seoul on Wednesday.

“The post office said it will try to deliver again today,” Lee said, adding that there had not been a recent case in which the court’s order has not been delivered.

While it is hard to say why Yoon might be intentionally refusing to receive the orders, the court said the justices will discuss whether Yoon’s apparent refusal could impact the trial proceedings.

The six justices covering Yoon’s impeachment case are set to hold their first meeting on Thursday, where they will discuss measures to take if the court orders are not delivered. A task force comprising 10 constitutional researchers will assist the justices in the legal proceedings.

Regarding a live broadcast of Yoon’s trial, the court reiterated its position that the trial will not be televised in the interest of maintaining order.

“We didn’t televise the previous impeachment trials of former Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and Park Geun-hye,” Lee said, adding that a recorded video of a trial will be uploaded on the court website and via the press.

But Yoon’s trial will be made public, the court said, according to its principles.

“All dates set for the (court’s) preparatory hearings, arguments and sentencing are open to the public. So we will apply the same to Yoon’s trial. Public attendance and press coverage are permitted,” she added.

Meanwhile, three nominees for the three vacant positions on the nine-seat court expressed mixed views regarding Yoon’s impeachment case.

The main opposition Democratic Party of Korea has nominated two candidates -- Ma Eun-hyeok and Jung Gye-seon, both judges from the Seoul Eastern District Court -- while the ruling People Power Party has nominated one -- Cho Han-chang, a former judge on the Seoul High Court.

In written responses to a query from Democratic Party Rep. Kim Han-kyu, the candidates provided slightly nuanced answers on how long the impeachment trial should last.

Kim currently serves as the opposition party secretary for the Special Committee on Confirmation Hearings for Constitutional Court Justices.

Ma, nominated by the Democratic Party, emphasized that under Article 65 of the Constitution, “the powers of the impeached official are suspended until the conclusion of the trial, and unnecessary delays in the proceedings could exacerbate social unrest.”

“Considering the intent of the Constitutional Court Act, it is desirable to issue a ruling as soon as possible in impeachment trials. However, such trials must not be conducted hastily. Decisions must be made after thorough arguments, deep analysis and discussions,” Ma said in a written statement.

Jung, another candidate from the Democratic Party, echoed that view.

Also noting that Yoon’s powers as an impeached official are suspended until the trial concludes, Jung said “A prolonged suspension of the powers of the impeached official could lead to instability and confusion, necessitating swift and focused trial proceedings.”

On the other hand, Cho, nominated by the ruling party, took a slightly different stance.

He pointed out that Article 38 of the Constitutional Court Act states that “if a vacancy among the justices prevents the required quorum of seven justices, the period of vacancy is not included in the trial duration.”

“While unreasonable delays in the Court’s decisions must be avoided, constitutional adjudication requires ensuring sufficient procedural safeguards and comprehensive deliberations. Therefore, it is difficult to specify a uniform timeframe for appropriate trial durations,” Cho said in a statement.

Although the political parties are at odds over the appointment of the three justices by the acting president, the Democratic Party has announced its plan to pass a bill expressing the parliament’s consent to the justices’ appointment at the National Assembly’s plenary session on Dec. 30.