Constitutional Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi as the resource person in the 3rd Leadership Education and Training of the Statistics Indonesia (Diklat PIM III BPS (Biro Pusat Statistik)) Class XXIV 2010 who visited the Constitutional Court, Wednesday (13/10) afternoon.
Jakarta, MKOnline – The Constitutional Court plays the role of safeguarding the administration of a stable state government based on constitution (the guardian of the constitution), making interpretation on the constitution (the final interpreter of the constitution), as well as implementing the principle of checks and balances.
“In addition to that, the Constitutional Court also has the role of ensuring the protection of constitutional rights,” Constitutional Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi said to participants of the 3rd Leadership Education and Training of the Indonesia Statistics Class XXIV 2010 who visited the Constitutional Court, Wednesday (13/10) afternoon.
On the other hand, the authority of the Court, Fadlil continued, is to hear at the first and final level, decision of which is final and binding, on cases of judicial review, to decide upon dispute of authority between state institutions, to decide upon the dissolution of political parties and to decide upon dispute over the results of general elections. “Another authority of the Constitutional Court is to decide on the People’s Legislative Assembly’s opinion related to motion for the impeachment of the President and/or Vice President during their term of office,” said Fadlil.
Fadlil continued that amendment to the 1945 Constitution was made in 4 phases, namely in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002. The Constitutional Court has normatively existed since 2001. Fadlil said that the Constitutional Court was established by the President and the People’s Legislative Assembly since 2003 with the stipulation of the Constitutional Court Law.
“The next question would be who was hearing constitutional cases before the establishment of the Constitutional Court? Did these constitutional issues remain unresolved? By who, in what manner,” said Fadlil before the audience.
Before the Court was established in 2003, Fadlil said, various constitutional issues were resolved by the People's Consultative Assembly, or by the President, occasionally. These cases were resolved by using political mechanism. In addition, the resolution of these cases was also made by the executive body using the administrative policy mechanism.
It is not surprising, Fadlil said, that back then, the President had such wide-ranging and enormous authority, that the President could act as the legal interpreter of the constitution, in which the President could categorize a person or accuse a person for being an “unconstitutional” figure at that time.
Furthermore, Fadlil explained that before amendment to the 1945 Constitution, legal issues were never resolved by law. If deviations occurred, the resolutions were often made through political method. After the establishment of the Constitutional Court, if the President violates the 1945 Constitution, there are two models of solution offered, first, by adopting the model of political mechanism at the level of the People's Consultative Assembly and the People’s Legislative Assembly and secondly, by adopting the model of legal mechanism at the Constitutional Court.
“This is the form of checks and balances between state institutions,” Fadlil said. (Nano Tresna A./mh)
Thursday, October 14, 2010 | 07:08 WIB 352