Chief Justice Anwar Usman delivering a keynote speech and opening the discussion on the Constitution, Thursday (9/2/2021) in the Constitutional Court’s hall. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, September 2, 2021 | 21:43 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) in collaboration with Forum Konstitusi held a discussion on “The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia: 20 Years After Amendment” onsite and virtually from the Constitutional Court hall on Thursday, September 2, 2021. Twenty Forum Konstitusi members as well as constitutional experts and figures were in attendance. Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Wahiduddin Adams, former constitutional justice for 2003-2008 and 2009-2013 Harjono, professor of philosophy of UGM Kaelan, and Forum Konstitusi chairman Andi Mattalatta were also in attendance. Forum Konstitusi is a body formed by former members of the Ad hoc Committees I and III of the MPR (People’s Consultative Assembly) to discuss the amendment to the 1945 Constitution. The forum serves to maintain, provide research, and disseminate the results of the constitutional amendment in order to actively promote the 1945 Constitution.

Chief Justice Anwar Usman delivered a keynote speech and officially opened the discussion. In his speech, he said that the amendment to the 1945 Constitution in 1999-2002 had led to quantitative and qualitative changes in the life of the nation and state. He said that prior to it, the 1945 Constitution was only comprised of 71 provisions. It is now comprised of 199 provisions. The original text only had 25 provisions. Before the amendment, the people’s sovereignty was implemented singularly, while afterward, the amendment affected the administrative structure.

“One of the implications is that there is no longer a highest state institution. In addition, the MPR no longer has the authority to elect and appoint the president. Due to the president and the MPR being on equal footing, the presidential system and the democratic state based on legal principles have been strengthened,” he said.

Justice Anwar also said that the amendment was driven by the Reform when changes were deemed necessary to accommodate latest developments in the country. The MPR then made changes by allowing the people through their representatives to offer their aspirations. The amendment did not remove the original text, he revealed.

He said of the growing discussion of a limited amendment to bring GBHN (State Policy Guidelines) back that today’s condition differed from that during the 1998 Reform. The people wanted changes as the existing norms could not catch up to the developments at the time. However, he said, the people’s representatives are hasty in bringing up this issue. They have legitimacy over the people in democracy, but they must also be sensitive to the people’s needs. “Constitutional amendment would have wide and significant impacts in the state life, so it must be done after some contemplation,” he said.

Not Only Juridical Texts

Meanwhile, professor of philosophy of UGM Kaelan provided his views from the philosophical perspective of normative law relating to the Constitution. He believed questions would arise if the Constitution was observed in the context of legal studies. He asserted that any amendment to the Constitution should be regulated in the Constitution itself through a procedure regulated outside of it.

He noted that in the MPR’s documents regarding the amendment showed asterisks in the articles that were amended in the first to fourth year (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002). He believed there had been around 97% changes, which indicated not amendment but a total change.

More specifically, Kaelan explained that the constitution showed the characteristics of the state administration system. He found weaknesses and strengths before and after the amendment in 1999 to 2002. In the 2002 amendment, the 1945 Constitution does not contain the characteristics of the nation state.  The Constitution is a national identity and symbol, but it does not show any relationship with the values of the proclamation of Independence.

“From this identity, it is actually necessary for the nation and state to continue to exist because the Constitution is not only a juridical text, but also one that reflects the state of the people and the nation’s culture. And this is not the result of the amendment to the 1945 Constitution in 2002,” he said virtually from his residence.

In the discussion, the participants were invited to review and discuss thoroughly the constitutionality of the amendment to the 1945 Constitution; the changes to the MPR in terms of institution, authority, and membership; and strengthening the enactment of the 1945 Constitution as the legitimate constitution; as well to exchange ideas regarding the 1945 Constitution 20 years after its amendment.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/13/2021 14:25 WIB

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

---