Constitutional Court researcher Abdul Ghoffar Husnan welcoming students of Law Faculty of Sriwijaya University at the Constitutional Court, Tuesday (30/10). Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Students of Law Faculty of Sriwijaya University visited the Constitutional Court on Tuesday morning (30/10/2018). Court researcher Abdul Ghoffar Husnan welcomed the 90 students in the Delegation Room. The students would like to know more about the Indonesian judiciary, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, as well as their authorities.

Abdul Ghoffar Husnan explained that in his book The Living Constitution, David A. Strauss questions, “Do we have a living Constitution?” The author believes that if not designed to be a living constitution, the constitution will be overtaken by the times. On U.S. Constitution that has been used for over two centuries, he said that it was designed to be a living constitution that would keep up with the times, in which an institution was authorized to interpret the Constitution without having to wait for official amendments.

Ghoffar said that the Indonesian Constitution has often changed since the independence until after the 1998 Reforms. “After the amendments to the 1945 Constitution, we do have a living constitution. However, before the amendments to the 1945 Constitution, we had not, because not one institution had been desined to interpret the Constitution,” he said.

“The interpretation of the Constitution in Indonesia used to lie with the President. […] At that time, when one violates the 1945 Constitution, not one court was authorized to declare [it]. Why? Because at that time [there had not been any institution] designed to guard the Constitution, while the executive branch was not designed to interpret the Constitution, as it is the executor of the Constitution. So, there must be an institution outside of that [to interpret it],” Ghoffar said.

Therefore, after the 1998 Reforms, the Constitutional Court was established on August 13, 2003 as an “umpire” for the administration, the supervisor of the legislative branch, and the final interpreter of the Constitution. It is authorized to examine laws against the 1945 Constitution, decide on authority dispute among state institutions, decide on the dissolution of political parties, and decide on disputes over election results. The Court is also obligated to decide on the House’s opinion on an alleged violation of law committed by the president and/or vice president. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)