The court was also able to understand the gap and expectations of the public from the judiciary,42 which the Supreme Court could not provide. The court was established at a time when people were losing faith in the justice system. It is difficult to bring the jurisdiction of the court into the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court is already dealing with its own internal problem. 45.
Elections upon Reform Era
The president prevailed on some issues, but not on all.68 The president's initiating role in the legislative process was not always well received, but it began to take hold. Twenty-nine parties, all of which were eligible to participate in the 2009 elections, together received more than 18 percent of the vote, but elected none to the DPR due to the parliamentary threshold. The result of the 2014 general election was not only an indication of the uprising of the people participating in the election, but it changes the configuration of political distributive power in the Indonesian parliament with 10 political parties in the DPR.
(2) The Speaker of the House is a deputy who comes from a political party that first won the most seats in the House;. The Head of the House/President of the DPR, which was previously determined by the political parties with the most seats in the Parliament, has changed through selection by the members of the House Representatives. As required by the Law on Presidential Elections and the interpretation of the Constitutional Court, the appointment of the President was carried out by the political parties that participate in the general elections and win at least 20 percent of the seats or 25 percent of the popular vote in the legislative elections.82 Based in the accumulation of votes that was released by the Electoral Commission on May 9, 2015, the political parties gather their coalition and only two presidential couples were registered in the KPU.83 Five political parties supported Jokowi Widodo (PDI-P, PKB, Nasdem, Hanura, PPP ).
The political parties that supported Prabowo Sugianto for president created the Red and White Coalition (Koalisi Merah Putih, KMP). On the other hand, the political parties that supported Joko Widodo created another coalition called Greater Indonesia.
How did this Political Situation Support Constitutional Court?
Horowitz argued that political party nominations are only necessary during presidential elections; however, this claim is not true for the 2014 legislative elections. A senior member of parliament from political parties supporting Prabowo Subianto, the elected Golkar party became the president of the DPR due to the realization that all leadership positions in committees (Badan) in parliament should be taken by vote/majority votes (as the enactment of UU MD3), the KMP in the leadership of the KIH parliament did not concede anything. After the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998, Indonesia held elections in 1999, followed by 48 political parties.
As a consequence, the absence of centralist political parties leading to political fragmentation will support the creation of an independent court.99 These fragmented political parties provide an appropriate political environment that supports the Court in challenging legislative and executive actions, in which they strengthen independence. of the judiciary.100. The Court acted as an arbitrator with its final and binding decision for the political parties and it became the need of the political parties to resolve the disputes between them.104 After dealing with the election, post-election and 2014 results, the political climate is relatively peaceful because the Court takes control as a solution of electoral disputes. Individual political party activism or member of parliament may not like what the Court does, however, if their political party supports and follows the Court's decision, they will follow and obey the Court's decision.106 Political parties need the Court to settle disputes between them internally or settle issues with other political parties, and the court's decision affects the way political parties make their decision. 107.
As a consequence of this deadlock, the constitutionality of the law in question is difficult to achieve and subject to review by the Court. Relations with political parties will create conflict especially because they do not trust each other what the court does, not only to solve their problem, but also to continue the trust that the political parties have given to the Court. 110.
Factor 3, Lack of Political Maturity
On the other hand, the credibility of other institutions (the Supreme Court, DPR and the President) has been called into question. 105. As the political leader of the democratic faction and the former chairman of Commission III who is responsible for the Regulation and the Judiciary testified, "In nature, the DPR is a wrestling arena or political lobby (political transaction) to get the amount of votes or support."108 . If the momentary interest of the faction is dominant, this is the condition in which a faction will harm the public interest.109 This momentary interest will escalate support or resistance in drafting a law.
Parliamentarians were busy setting up other institutions such as constitutional court, corruption eradication commission or judicial commission, but they failed to reform themselves.
Failed to Train Candidates
In the political reality (political realities), however, that difference is hardly recognizable during debate related to political issues and policy.114 All political parties are able to work together and disregard ideology barrier. The result of this phenomenon is the political developments in the cartel party system, which is characterized among other things by the tendency of competition, and cooperation between political parties is more focused to achieve rent-seeking policy rather than to fight on the basis of a particular ideology to protect the public interest.115 Political cartel phenomenon explains reason for political parties to be closed and look forward to be part of the government or state and participate in national economic phenomenon.116. Political parties have failed to conduct recruitment and cadres in politics and act only as an election machine.117.
Political parties did not educate their members, but they grew strong enough to build coalitions to attack the court in 2011 and 2013. One of the reasons why political parties failed or refused to reform themselves is that if they do , they will not be able to meet political interests or to fulfill the interests of the leaders of the political parties.118.
The Failure to Reform
Once the moment of punctuation balance has passed, it is difficult to carry out reform and this is what happens with political parties in Indonesia. As a result of the party system, which is still feudal and closed, the strategic decisions of political parties often ignore the aspirations of the cadre. Meanwhile, Formappi researcher, Lucius Karus, said that the current political parties make decisions more based on the interests of the elite and these interests are not always in line with the ideology of the party.120.
Among other institutions that are the product of reformation, political parties could not reform themselves.125 Political parties are managed by undemocratic, oligarchy and personality itself. A cartel describes a situation in which each party neglects its ideological commitment and program in order to maintain its existence as a single group.127 The competition between political parties is over when the election period passes and each party secures its seat in parliament. Ambardi's take on the political cartel argument is not new regarding the quality of political parties in Indonesia.
One of the most cited scholars on the political party system in Indonesia is Dan Slater who identified the development of a political cartel in Indonesia.128 Slater argued. As a result, politics is perceived as a grand coalition and the absence of opposition.129 Political parties as a group will disregard their manifesto as their campaign promise and will collectively support the government's program.130 Slater's argument may be correct for the expressions of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, but it must adapt to recent developments in Indonesia.
Corruption
Perhaps this could lead to corruption charges that had been leveled against many political party activists. Transparency International found that political parties and parliament are the most corrupt institution in Indonesia and the politician is the most corrupt actor,151 followed by the Judiciary and the Police. Public trust in political parties is also at its lowest point, compared to public trust in the military, government (central and
The failure to form and reform its institution also affects the decision of political parties to select their candidates for parliament. No wonder why we have an MP with this quality and we make sure that the democratization process is slow because we cannot choose the smartest people in political parties. Instead, political parties also inherited a post-Soeharto structural failure.163 As a result, there is almost no tradition of rationally organized, democratic and accountable political parties.
The current electoral system leads to no need for political parties to be accountable to the public.166 Electoral system created by parliament itself creates a situation where a political party only needs a public vote for a five-year period . There is no need for an MP or political parties to take care of their constituents or make them accountable to their constituents.
Why does this Condition Support Constitutional Court?
Conclusion
These three factors underpin the Court's legitimacy and provide space in which the Court is able to intervene in the political sphere of Indonesian politics. With its judicial review authority, the Court is able to strike down laws intended to reduce judicial activism. The coalition is only able to muster their power to produce a law to amend the Constitutional Court Act, but was not strong enough to change the Court through constitutional amendments.
It is one thing to attack the Court from a legislative perspective, and quite another to assemble coalitions to amend the Constitution to reduce the Court's authority. However, if this practice continues, the public perception will not change towards the Parliament, which will make the Court have a better position in the public image. The question of how far the Court will be able to intervene and conduct judicial activism in the Indonesian context requires further research.
Undang-undang tentang Pemilihan Anggota DPR, DPD, dan DPRD. Undang-Undang tentang Majelis Permusyawaratan, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daereh (UU MPR, DPR, dan DPRD).
