A remote lecture shared with faculties of law from four state universities; Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Diponegoro, Universitas Airlangga and Universitas Jember via video conference with keynote speaker the MK researcher Abdul Ghoffar at the MK Building. Photo PR/Ganie
A remote lecture in-partnership with four law faculty from different universities was held by the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) on Wednesday afternoon (8/4). Several students from Faculty of Law Universitas Indonesia presented at the MK building and welcomed by MK Researcher Abdul Ghoffar. While the students from other three universities –Universitas Diponegoro, Universitas Airlangga, and Universitas Jember– received the lecture via video conference.
At the occasion, Abdul Ghoffar explained the meaning of constitutional complaint. "There is no general rule that translate formally on the meaning of constitutional complaint. Some translate it as lawsuit. petition, and there is some other that translate it as objection," explained Ghoffar to students.
“When we translate constitutional complaint as objection, what it actually is? Simply said, constitutional complaint is an objection/complaint filed by individuals and or state representatives to judicial institutions,” explained Ghoffar.
In practice, said Ghoffar, the complaint is various. For example in Germany, constitutional complaint is encompasses to matters related to (other) court verdicts. In Germany, the Supreme Court made a verdict, and then it could be filed to the Constitutional Court.
“Every matter related with violation of citizens’ constitutional rights in some countries could be filed to the Constitutional Court. Then, no wonder the Germany Constitutional Court receive cases up to 20.000 cases per year. Compare with the cases filed to the Republic of Indonesia Constitutional Court that only about 1.000 cases per year,” said Ghoffar.
Ghoffar compared the form of cases such as in the United States. People could proceed to the Constitutional Court with various cases, not just constitutional complaint. For example, racism cases or tax cases. “The case presents not in form of constitutional complaint. However it includes as usual case that a model of constitutional complaint is figured out when further examined. Then it executed,” added Ghoffar.
“Different matter such as in South Korea, those who could proceed (at the Court) are just particular communities. For example, the authority of South Korea Constitutional Court is expanded,” added Ghoffar.
Ghoffar further explained, at least there are two court models in the world. First is American model, the authority to conduct judicial review on legislation –included constitutional complaint– is whole, not fragmented.
“The Supreme Court’s authority is equal to or even bigger than other (judicial institution) authority. Why? It because almost all cases in the United States could file to the Supreme Court,” Ghoffar explained.
The second is Europe model. Europe model on average is centralized Constitutional Court. For example, in Germany. “Almost all cases in Germany could be handled by the Constitutional Court. The difference is, in Germany is noted on the constitution, while in the United States, the Court expanding itself,” said Ghoffar.
Ghoffar said, the struggle to survive the Constitutional Court wasn’t easy. It was because judicial institutions had no ‘weapon and money’.
“The verdict of judicial institutions cannot be conducted alone. It is assisted by other authority institutions. No wonder the Constitutional Court in several countries is disbanded. For example the Thailand Constitutional Court is disbanded, despite of their excellent performance,” said Ghoffar. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Prasetyo Adi N.)
Wednesday, April 08, 2015 | 15:58 WIB 124