---

Saturday, April 24, 2021 | 20:37 WIB

Secretary-General M. Guntur Hamzah speaking at a FGD on the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Court’s decisions, Saturday (24/4/2021). Photo by HAK/Arinta Sulistyo.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) and the Law Faculty of the University of Jember organized a virtual focus group discussion (FGD) on Saturday, April 24, 2021. Experts, Court officials and staff members, faculty members and academics attended the FGD on “The Monitoring and Evaluation of the Implementation of the Constitutional Court’s Decisions.”

The rector of the University of Jember Iwan Taruna thanked the Court for its collaboration as well as the experts and participants of the event.

“We don’t know how far the Court’s decisions have been implemented in society. So far, society are only aware of [petitions being granted or rejected]. Of course the Court has reasons to hold this FGD. The results of this event are expected to be an output and outcome in upholding the Constitution in the country,” he said.

Evaluation of Implementation of Court’s Decisions

Secretary-General M. Guntur Hamzah in his opening speech explained the implications of the Court’s decisions. He said that studies by experts and the Court show that the Court’s decisions have mostly been implemented.

“Of course there are reasons why [some] haven’t been implemented. In relation to this, we understand that compliance with the Court’s decisions is part of compliance with law in general. In academia, we know the law obedience theory as conveyed by expert H.C. Kelman,” he said.

Kelman, Guntur added, stated that law obedience is categorized into three. First, compliance obedience, meaning that people comply because of fear of sanctions and the law enforcement, not because they understand the essence of a ruling. Second, identification obedience, where people comply because they feel a sense of belonging to a regulation or ruling, for example, when the Court’s staff follow the Court’s decisions because they work there. Third, internalized obedience, where people comply because they think that a regulation or ruling serves to build the nation and legal awareness among the people.

“Meanwhile, the Court doesn’t have law enforcement apparatuses, meaning that there are no institutions serving to uphold the Court’s decisions. Compliance with them is merely because the people or citizens understand their importance,” he said.

Importance of Monitoring-Evaluation of Court’s Decisions

Guntur said that for that reason, this FGD is an important step to finding out whether the Court’s decisions have been implemented in society. The opinions of the experts speaking at the FGD should be inputs for the Courts to design strategies to ensure the implementation of its decisions. He added that the Court has conducted such monitoring-evaluation of its decisions several times.

“There have been outputs of the monitoring-evaluation of the Court’s decisions but how about the outcomes? We hope to be able to have outcomes and benefits so that we’ll understand what the Court decided and the results of the Court’s decisions,” Guntur stressed. He also added that the Court has compiled all existing constitutions worldwide.

No Executorial Institution

The Court’s chief registrar Muhidin also talked about the the monitoring-evaluation of the Court’s decisions. In his presentation, he said that the Court’s decisions obtain permanent legal force since being pronounced at an open plenary hearing and that they are erga omnes—apply to all.

“The Court doesn’t have any executorial institution to ensure compliance with its decisions, so there is no guarantee that the Court’s decisions will always be implemented by the addressees,” he said. Therefore, given that the norms of law are one unity, the implementation of the Court’s decisions must be through certain stages, depending on the substance of the decisions in question.

“To find out whether the Court’s decisions have been implemented by the addresses and how much, monitoring and evaluation are imperative,” he said.

Muhidin revealed that the Court’s Legal and Registrar Administration Bureau has conducted such monitoring in 2021. “In the monitoring and evaluation in the first quarter of 2021, 21 judicial review decisions of 8 laws show that 17 decisions have been implemented entirely, 3 partly, and 1 hasn’t been implemented,” he said.

Recommendations

The Director-General of Legislation of the Law and Human Rights Ministry Widodo Ekatjahjana offered a creative idea to improve the implementation of the Court’s decisions.

“We all are thinking of the method to ensure the effective implementation of the Court’s decisions. I’m looking at it with my 7-year-experience at the Directorate General of Legislation,” he explained.

He believed there had been sufficient monitoring and evaluation, but he said that the Court must prepare instruments that could make it more effective. One of them is by giving opinions on the addresses. “Opinions as issued by the Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform’s [WBK/Corruption-Free Zone] or the [unqualified (WTP) opinions] by the Audit Board,” he explained.

Guntur positively responded to the idea of compliance index. “This is a remarkable idea because we have been giving out the Constitution Awards to ministries and agencies that the Court deem have complied with the Court’s decisions and have been active in the Court’s hearings,” he revealed.

The FGD took place for three days (April 24-26, 2021) with 32 speakers delivering presentations virtually and physically.

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/26/2021 14:23 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---