---

Court’s Researcher Irfan Nur Rachman delivered his lesson to law students of Universitas Ahmad Dahlan Yogyakarta, on Monday (15/6) at Ground Floor Hall, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

Seventy law students of Universitas Ahmad Dahlan Yogyakarta visited the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) on Monday (15/6). The visit intended for deepen law understanding, particularly about the Constitutional Court which used for students’ graduation paper topic.

The visit was welcomed by Court’s Researcher Irfan Nur Rachman at Ground Floor Hall, the Constitutional Court Building. Beginning his lesson, Irfan said the Constitutional Court was like a baby who born in 2003 then directly obliged to run. “Since its establishment, the Court is demanded to adapt on recent constitutional condition which quite chaotic at that time,” said him.

The Constitutional Court was born on third amendment of the 1945 Constitution. Prior to the amendment, Irfan added that Indonesia applied parliament supremacy system. The People’s Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat –MPR) as Parliament was placed at supreme position. The authority then shared with other government institutions, among others were President, the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat –DPR), the Supreme Audit Agency (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan –BPK), and the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung –MA). “At that time, this kind of governance system was a failure and incorrect. It later realized that the Constitution which born in 1945 had carried juridical flaws,” he added.

At the BPUPKI session, Bung Karno said several times that the constitution at that time was for temporary. It was also confirmed by Soepomo. Irfan asserted there were many mistakes in the past constitution. Indonesia applied presidential system; however in the 1945 Constitution, the presidential system and parliament system were mixed. “It resulted on ambiguous constitutional system,” said Irfan

Constitution ambiguity was seen in the 1945 Constitution prior to amendment which stated legislation authority was granted to the President. It later changed, legislation authority was granted back to the House of Representatives. Another ambiguity was the presidential term. Prior to the amendment, there was no limit on presidential term. The President term was five years and could be re-elected for the next term, again and again. As a result, the 1945 Constitution was potentially caused authoritarian regime because the President had huge authority in organizing the State. 

“The composition of the MPR consists of regional, group, Indonesian Military (Tentara Nasional Indonesia –TNI), and Indonesian National Police (Kepolisian Republik Indonesia –Polri) representatives which all of them elected by the President. It causes the president become an institution which have extraordinary authority, which considered bad for democracy. It is one of the reasons of the amendment,” he explained.

It was the reason of the 1945 Constitution amendment. In order to prevent arbitrariness, several limitations made and agreed by the legislator. The limitation were uphold previous preamble which regarded as the soul of the 1945 Constitution, uphold Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia which framed by the Pancasila, include normative matters in the elucidation of articles to be separated articles, addendum system used for amendment, and agree to maintain and strengthen presidential system.

“The amendment of the 1945 Constitution which becomes the fundament of Constitutional Court establishment brings legal implication to the Indonesian constitutional system. Previously Indonesia applied parliamentary supremacy system, and then shifted to constitutional supremacy system. From the Constitution, the authority (of government institutions, red) then shared. The amendment is stipulated in Article 1 (2) the 1945 Constitution,” Irfan added.

The implication was entire government institutions had equal power. The institutions had potential to conflict due to its equal power. Therefore, one of the authorities of the Constitutional Court was resolved government institution disputes. Other authorities of the Constitutional Court were conduct judicial review on Act towards the 1945 Constitution, dissolve political parties, and resolve election result disputes. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N)

---