Constitutional Justice, Hamdan Zoelva explained about the authorities and obligation of The Court when Teaching and Education Faculty (FKIP) of Surya Kencana University, Cianjur visited The Court on Wednesday (2/3).
Jakarta, MKOnline - Students of Teaching and Education Faculty of Surya Kencana University, CIanjur visited the Constitutional Court (The Court) on Wednesday (2/3) morning. The aim of the visit, besides wanting to witness directly the hearing session in The Court, several facilities and the working system of The Court, also to get a short lecture delivered by Constitutional Justice, Hamdan Zoelva.
In that opportunity, Hamdan among others explained in detail about the authorities and the obligation of The Court. As known, The Court’s first authority was to review Acts against the Constitution. According to Hamdan, the idea of judicial review of Act was based on the Marbury vs Madison case (1803), which annulled the stipulation related to the appointment of a judge (judiciary Act 1789) and became the basis of the authority for a judicial review of Supreme Court in the USA.
In the following years then the idea of Hans Kelsen arose (1919). According to Kelsen, so that stipulation saying that a constitution as the highest law could be guaranteed in the application, an organ was needed to review a legislation product whether it was in contrary or not to the constitution. Until a year later, the first Constitutional Court in the world was formed in Austria (1920).
Meanwhile in Indonesia, the development of ideas for the review of an act against the constitution was firstly proposed by Moh. Yamin in the session of BPUPK (Intelligence Body for Independence Preparation Efforts) for the Great Assembly (Supreme Court) was given the authority to compare acts. However, Soepomo disagreed because the Constitution composed did not follow the Trias Politica system and there were not many law graduates who had the experience. In year 1970-es Indonesian Law Graduate Scholars proposed that the Supreme Court to be given the authority to review acts. Until finally a Constitutional Amendment took place, then The Constitutional Court of Republic of Indonesia was founded on August 17, 2003.
Further, revealed Hamdan, the second authority of The Court was to settle disputes over State Bodies’ authorities. Should there be a dispute between state bodies for example between the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President, between the DPR and the City Councils (DPD), between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission, then The Court played the role to put the problem on who was most authorized according to the Constitution for a State’s affair. “That is what is called disputes over state bodies whose authorities were given by the Constitution”, added Hamdan.
Related to the second authorities of The Court, explained Hamdan, constitution limited in such a way that only state bodies whose authorities were provided by the Constitution. If the authorities of the bodies were not provided by the constitution, then the bodies could not have a case at The Court. For example, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was formed based on an Act and the authority was not provided by the Constitution.
Then what became the third authority of The Court was to decide on the dissolution of political parties. This was also, pointed Hamdan, related to the Constitution. “Why? Because one of the basic elements of democracy is a political party, as a form of the freedom to unite and to have an organization. If this authority was given to the Government, then one day the Government can dissolve a political party they do not like,” explained Hamdan.
As what happened during Bung Karno time, because of his dislike to Masyumi Party and PSI which often criticized him, then a reason was sought to dissolve Masyumi Party. For example, he said that Masyumi Party and PSI to take part in the Permesta rebellion. Consequently, in 1960 Soekarno froze the two parties.
Furthermore, Hamdan also described the fourth authority of The Court that was to decide on the dispute over general election result, including the regional election. He also explained about the one obligation of The Court that was to give decision on the DPR’s opinion that the President and/or Vice President was alleged to conduct violations on law in form of treachery, corruption, bribery, other serious crimes or disgraceful acts. (Nano Tresna A/mh/YDJ)
Wednesday, March 02, 2011 | 16:03 WIB 164