LRWD I N D O N E S I A
Law Reform Weekly Digest
Edition 35/October/2013
Indonesia LRWD is published by Indonesian Centre for Law and Policy Studies (www.pshk.or.id). This weekly newsletter provides info, updates,
and analysis on law reform in Indonesia. To subscribe, please contact [email protected].
In This Issue
Supervising the
Constitutional Court Judge constitutional court
house of
representatives A Remedial Momentum in the Constitutional Judge Selection
Revising the Law on
Representative Institutions;
Is There Any Improvement in the System
Constitutional Court
Supervising the constitutional court judge
The event of the arrest of Constitutional Court Chairman, Akil Mochtar, by the Corruption Eradication Commission a few days ago led President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to plan on issuing a Government Regulation Substituting the Law (Perppu) on the Constitutional Court. The details of this Government Regulation Substituting the Law have not been mentioned; one thing that we suspect will be regulated is the supervision of the Constitutional Court Judge.
The supervision mechanism towards the judge basically involves two (2) supervisory agencies, namely internal and external. Currently, the internal supervision is being done by a consultative judges session. The report and information on the Constitutional Court Judge is discussed in the session, whereas the external supervision is currently still in a legal vacuum. Beforehand, the Judicial Commission, based on Law No. 22/2004 on the Judicial Commission, conducted supervisions towards the behavior of judges in order to uphold their honor and dignity and preserve their performance. However, Court Decision No.
05/PUU-IV/2006 mentions that constitutional judges are not included in the definition of judges whose ethical behavior is supervised by the Judicial Commission.
The current condition is in need of regulations regarding the internal and external supervision towards the constitutional judge. What needs to be established right now is a supervising mechanism towards the behavior of constitutional judges with agency criteria that is independent, autonomous, permanent and integrated.
In addition, reorganizing the systematics of agencies associated with judicial power should also be encouraged. (RMF)
One year ahead of the general elections, the House of Representatives will again discuss the bill regulating representative institutions in Indonesia. The mentioned bill will alter the provisions in Law No. 27/2009 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, House of Regional Representatives and Regional House of Representatives. The alteration process is commonly done by the House and Government nearing the general elections. The existence of the law is crucial in designing official representative institutions in Indonesia, the relationship between institutions, positions of its members, relationships of the institution and the public in carrying out its function and other regulations that have to do with representative institutions.
Preparation of the bill has been done by the Legislation Council of the House of Representatives through a Working Committee who submitted their work in the form of draft changes of Law No. 27/2009 on 25 September 2013. Efforts in altering this bill have been done by the Working Committee since 2010 when the alteration process began.
The Legislation Council will submit the bill during the Plenary Session to be ratified as a House of Representatives Initiative Proposal Bill.
Based on the explanation from the Working Committee Chairman Anna Muawannah in the media, this alteration bill regulates the authority of the People’s Consultative Assembly in the receiving and hearing of state agency reports, which is regulated in the 1945 Constitution. The giving of this authority deviates from the Constitution because it already regulates the limitations of the People’s
Consultative Assembly’s authority. In addition, this provision seems to alter the concept of the House in the Constitution, which regulates that it is not a permanent institution but a collective forum along with the House of Representatives and House of Regional Representatives in certain state conditions, such as constitution amendments and the dismissal of the President and Vice President. The second authority given to the House is the socialization of the People’s Consultative Assembly Decree that is still valid.
This provision is also a bit out of place because the socialization function, which is supposed to be a temporary activity, now becomes a permanent one.
Besides regarding these authorities of the House, the Bill also includes regulations on the involvement of the House of Regional Representatives in discussing bills regarding regional affairs. These provisions are follow-ups towards Constitutional Court Ruling No. 92/PUU-X/2012 on 27 March 2013. The decision gave authority to the House of Regional Representatives to discuss bills along with the House and Government.
The draft of the alteration bill regulates 91 provision amendments in Law 27/2009; a large number for an Alteration Bill. Its legislation process, if agreed upon by the House to become an initial proposal, will need a stage of submission to the President, followed by a collective discussion. So, there are still many chances to intervene and convey aspirations to the Parliament regarding provision improvements in the bill, since it is essential in regulating representative institutions in Indonesia. (MNS)
Revising the Law on representative institutions; Is There Any Improvement in the System?
House of Representatives
Constitutional Court
A remedial momentum in the constitutional judge selection
The arrest of the Constitutional Court Chairman by the Corruption Eradication Commission made many question the recruitment of Constitutional Court judges. Article 24C article (3) of the 1945 Constitution states that there are nine Constitutional Judges that are appointed by the President. These nine came from the Supreme Court, the House of Representatives and the President who each proposed three names.
In its practice, the appointing by the three higher institutions is not done in a transparent and accountable manner. Each proposer has no standard or clear election mechanism; in fact, the selection and election are done behind closed doors. The public only receives information after one is declared chosen, moreover, after they are
inducted. This condition is not rare towards protests from the public.
The arrest of the Constitutional Court Chairman because of alleged involvement in corruption cases is a smack in the face towards constitutional enforcement in Indonesia. This case not only destroys individual credibility, but also the institutional credibility of the Constitutional Court. The current momentum should be utilized for improvements.
The three proposing institutions should have a criteria and clear mechanism in carrying out authority in selecting and appointing constitutional judges. If the three institutions are not able to determine and implement the standards when selecting, they should establish a special selection committee who are competent enough and are accessible by the public. (FN).
