• President Yoon Suk Yeol denies allegations of ordering military intervention during his martial law attempt.
• Yoon’s defense argues his actions were a response to political obstruction, not a bid for control.
• South Korea's anti-corruption agency has requested indictments for insurrection against Yoon.
• The Constitutional Court will determine Yoon's future, with a ruling expected soon.
• Political tensions intensify as supporters clash with law enforcement outside court.

SEOUL — President Yoon Suk Yeol, South Korea’s impeached leader, appeared at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, where he vehemently denied allegations that he ordered military forces to remove lawmakers from the National Assembly during his contentious martial law declaration on December 3. This marked Yoon's first public appearance since being detained, making him the first incumbent president in South Korea to face such a situation. The court is currently reviewing an impeachment motion against him, and it has until June to decide whether to reinstate him or remove him permanently.

During the hearing, Yoon articulated his stance that the deployment of military troops was intended to act as a warning to the opposition-controlled Democratic Party, which he accused of obstructing governance. "In this country, parliament and news media are far more powerful than the president", Yoon asserted, reflecting his belief in the separation of powers. He emphasized that manipulating military actions would only invite public backlash and further complicate constitutional governance.

Despite these defenses, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) has formally requested that prosecutors indict Yoon for insurrection and abuse of power, following his unprecedented martial law initiative. The CIO's actions outlined claims that Yoon's attempts at asserting control were aimed at undermining South Korea's constitutional order, leading to significant political unrest.

Yoon's defense also argued that his martial law decree, which was overturned shortly after its implementation, was a necessary step to address what he termed a "parliamentary dictatorship." In his defense, Yoon's lawyers highlighted that any military intervention was never intended for full martial law, merely to resolve the deadlock facing his administration. His past defense minister, who resigned following the incident, testified in court that Yoon had denied requests for extensive troop mobilization, contradicting the prosecution's narrative that he sought to exert military authority over the assembly.

As ongoing investigations continue, public sentiment remains highly polarized. Incidents of violence have accompanied demonstrations from Yoon's supporters, particularly following the issuance of an arrest warrant which led to clashes with law enforcement at district courts. In recent weeks, a reported riot occurred outside a court building as Yoon's supporters protested his treatment, drawing further media attention to the country's deepening political crisis.

The Constitutional Court must decide rapidly, given the implications of the impeachment not just for Yoon, but for South Korea's reputation as a robust democracy. As this political saga unfolds, many analysts caution that the outcomes may significantly influence the direction of Korean politics in the coming years. The court's decisions will not only shape Yoon's fate but could also instigate broader consequences for governance and civilian rights in South Korea.

For continuous updates on this unfolding story, refer to original reports from LA Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera.