Constitutional Court Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi was giving a brief lecture to the teachers of Civics Education PKN) of Semarang on Monday (4/10) in the press conference room of the Court.
Jakarta, MKOnline - “One important issue, the implication of the amendment to the 1945 Constitution has been the formation of the Constitutional Court (The Court) in addition to the previously existing Supreme Court. With the establishment of The Court, a simple question arises on the difference between the Court and the Supreme Court.” said Constitutional Court Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi when giving a short lecture to the teachers of Civics Education of Semarang on Monday (4/10) in the Court’s press conference room.
Ahmad Fadlil explained the difference between The Court and the Supreme Court from the aspect of law used for adjudication. The Court adjudicates based on the constitution. The cases heard in The Court are constitutional cases or legal constitutional cases.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court uses laws inferior to the constitution. The cases heard in the Supreme Court are called legal cases.
“Although under certain circumstances the Supreme Court may discover law from the community or the constitution, it does not adjudicate based on the constitution,” added Fadlil Sumadi.
Fadlil continued that the amendment to the 1945 has been made in four stages namely in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. Normatively, The Court has been existing since 2001. However, continued Fadlil, The Court was established by the President in 2003.
“The next question arises as to who heard constitutional cases before the establishment of The Court. Were constitutional issues not settled? By who and how?” conveyed Fadlil before the audience.
Before the Court was established in 2003, said Fadlil, various constitutional issues were settled by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), or sometimes by the President. The issues were settled using political mechanism. In addition, the settlement was conducted through administrative policy mechanism by the executive.
No wonder, said Fadli, at that time the President had such extensive and great power that the President could become the legal interpreter of the constitution, including to categorize or to accuse a person of being “unconstitutional”, which was also conducted by the President at that time.
“Thus, in fact, constitutional cases were at that time handled by the strongest,” asserted Fadli.
It is different at the present, continued Fadli, where constitutional cases are settled the Court. It is acknowledged that pursuant to Article of 10 of Law No. 24/2003 about The Constitutional Court, it has four authorities (to conduct judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution, to decide upon disputes over the authority of state institutions, to decide upon dissolution of political parties, to decide upon disputes over the results of general elections) and one obligation (to pass the decision on the opinion of the House of Representatives (DPR) that the President and/or Vice President are alleged to have committed violations of the law in the form of treason against the state, corruption, bribery as well as other serious crimes). (Nano Tresna A./Yoga)
Monday, October 04, 2010 | 14:48 WIB 324