Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra giving a presentation at a focus group discussion by the Supreme Court Judicial Training Center, Wednesday (3/8/2022) in Jakarta. Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra gave a presentation at a focus group discussion (FGD) by the Supreme Court Judicial Training Center on Wednesday, March 8, 2023 in Jakarta. The event was entitled “The Supreme Court Regulation Draft on Procedure to Decide on the DPRD’s Opinion on the Dismissal of Heads of Regions by the Supreme Court.”

To the attendees, Justice Saldi explained that there are fundamental differences in the appointment of heads of regions compared to the past. Currently, he said, they are directly elected through election. In contrast, in the past, they were elected by the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD).

This presidential model, he said, calls for a judicial institution to provide legal opinion in the dismissal process. This, he added, is similar to the Constitutional Court’s authority in the impeachment of the president/vice president, where the Constitutional Court provides an opinion on the DPR’s (House of Representatives) allegation that the president and/or vice president have committed a violation according to the Constitution. If the Constitutional Court decides that the allegation is proven, the decision is taken to the MPR (People’s Consultative Assembly) to be decided politically.

However, Justice Saldi said the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court had different experience on impeachment. “The Constitutional Court has Constitutional Court Regulation but until now it has never had experience with impeachment, and hopefully it will not. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court does not yet have Supreme Court Regulations but has experience [with impeachment],” he said.

He said that in resolving impeachment cases, trials must be held because there are concrete facts to examine, in which both the DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) and the head of region/deputy are given the opportunity to prove all arguments and give rebuttals.

Justice Saldi proposed that the impeachment trials of the heads of regions be held openly to reduce public suspicion, considering impeachment is a political constitutional case. He also asserted that the 30-day deadline to complete the impeachment of head of region/deputy was the Supreme Court’s option, whether it was calculated from the time of registration or from the start of the first trial.

Supreme Court’s Version

Previously, Supreme Court Justice for the State Administrative Chamber, Yodi Martono Wahyunadi, in his presentation explained that in dismissing regional heads/deputies, the Supreme Court exercises its authority in a limited manner. He explained the mechanism for this dismissal, which must be completed within 30 days.

The petition for the dismissal of a regional head can be submitted by the DPD (Regional Representatives Council) and the Central Government. He also explained that such a petition shall be submitted by the institution, so individual members of the DPRD could not submit such a petition.

Next, Mohammad Syaiful Aries, Vice Dean of the Law Faculty of Airlangga University, explained the application of the principle of proportionality between the rights and obligations of state administrators. He highlighted the dismissals that occurred in Jember Regency and Karo Regency. He revealed that the case of Jember Regent, who was not given the opportunity to attend to answer the DPRD interpellation, became the Supreme Court’s basis to reject the DPRD’s petition. In its opinion, the Supreme Court stated that the Regent was not given the right to answer so the DPRD's petition was rejected. In contrast, Karo Regent was not present to answer the Karo Regency DPRD’s interpellation even though he had been given the opportunity, so the Supreme Court granted the petition for his impeachment.

Aries also noted that there are no clear provisions in the Regional Government Law that regulates self-defense in the dismissal of regional head/deputy, therefore it needs to be regulated in a Supreme Court regulation.

In the Q&A session, Depok City DPRD Chairman Yusufsyah Putra asked about the procedure to file a petition to the Supreme Court if a regional head/deputy has committed a violation of their oath of office. “Does the violation of the oath of office of the regional head still go through the same mechanism, brought to the Supreme Court through the leadership or can it be done by members [of DPRD]?” he asked.

Next, Chairman of the Bekasi City DPRD Saifuddailah asked if the regional head/deputy’s right to reply is not a repetition of the right of interpellation, the right of inquiry, or the right to question.

In response, Justice Saldi leveled criticism at the flexibility of the existing statutory provisions, which makes it difficult to measure violations of decency, ideology, and other violations. Therefore, he said, the Supreme Court’s authority to impeach the heads/deputy heads of regions is a legal filter to neutralize political interests in the regions.

Author       : Ilham M. Wiryadi
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---