Sang-Hee Han, an emeritus professor of constitutional law at Konkuk University, emphasized in The Three-Year Comprehensive Report on the Prosecution under the Yoon Suk-yeol Administration the importance of the "rule of law," not the "rule by law." At first glance, the two phrases may appear similar, but between them lies a deep chasm—a divide that determines the very essence of democracy. Law is not inherently just. Depending on who applies it, for what purpose, and in what manner, it can serve as a shield that protects citizens’ freedoms or as a blade wielded by those in power.

The “rule of law” means that both rulers and citizens are equally bound by the same laws, that the law restrains the exercise of power, and that it embodies substantive values such as justice and fundamental rights. By contrast, the “rule by law” describes a condition in which the law is reduced to a mere tool of governance, serving the political ends of those in power rather than safeguarding the rights of citizens.

This distinction is not a matter of abstract philosophy; it has defined the fate of nations and their people. Nazi Germany offers a stark example: the Hitler regime implemented the genocide of Jews through legal procedures. These acts, though “lawful” in form, were fundamentally unjust—a quintessential example of the “rule by law” destroying human dignity and life.

The United States was no exception. Until the 1960s, legal systems in several Southern states institutionalized racial discrimination. Restrictions in transportation, education, and voting all passed through proper legislative procedures, but they were morally indefensible. In response, Martin Luther King Jr. famously asked, “Is an unjust law truly a law?”—a rallying cry for the restoration of the rule of law.

Korea’s own history offers similar lessons. The “Yushin Constitution” under President Park Chung-hee took the form of a constitutional amendment, but it was an act of violence against the will of the people. It granted unchecked powers to the president—leaving behind only the shell of law, stripped of the spirit of freedom and the public good. It was a quintessential manifestation of the “rule by law.”

We must seriously reflect on whether we are repeating the same historical mistakes. Under the Yoon administration, prosecutorial powers have, in certain cases, been exercised selectively, preserving the appearance of legality while allowing for arbitrary interpretation and application. Investigations and indictments have been disproportionately directed at political opponents, while whistleblowers and the press have been stifled. In such an environment, the phrase “doing it by the law” no longer functions as a reliable indicator of justice.

Classical liberal John Locke, in The Second Treatise of Government(Ch. 6, Sec. 57), wrote:

“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”

This is a reminder that what matters is not merely following legal procedures but ensuring that the law substantively serves to protect freedom. Law must never become a tool of power; it must remain a shield for citizens’ lives. This is the frontline of civic defense and a necessary condition for democracy. In short, “doing it by the law” must always mean “doing it justly.”

To safeguard democracy, civil society must assume a central role in restoring the rule of law. Oversight mechanisms over state institutions must be reinforced, and the judiciary must be equipped with systems and a culture that enable it to exercise political neutrality and uphold the public interest with full autonomy. At this critical juncture, fostering social sensitivity and cultivating a vibrant public sphere that can breathe life back into the spirit of the law are not optional—they are imperative.