Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul giving a keynote speech virtually at the school of constitution by the Indonesian Students’ Association, Friday (3/10/2023). Photo by MKRI.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) stated that Indonesia is a law-based state as is stipulated in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. Similarly, the sovereignty is vested in the people and is carried out based on the Constitution. This is the essence of constitutional democracy, where everything must be based on the Constitution, not on one’s will and desire, but everything must be in line with the Constitution.
This statement was made by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul in his keynote speech at the school of constitution of 2023 on “The Role of PPI Dunia in the Fifth Amendment to the 1945 Constitution” organized by the World Indonesian Students’ Association (PPI Dunia) virtually on Friday, March 10, 2023.
He said that in an effort to ensure constitutional democracy and the fulfillment of the citizens’ constitutional rights, the Constitutional Court in the past 19 years has made landmark decisions, which has improved the legal order in the state.
“Historically, constitutional interpretation began with (US) Chief Justice Marshall’s decision on Madison v. Marbury, which then developed in constitutional practice in various countries, including Indonesia,” Justice Manahan said before MPR (People’s Consultative Assembly) speaker Bambang Soesatyo, House (DPR) Commission III member Arsul Sani, and other guests and participants.
Justice Manahan explained that through the third amendment to the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court was established. However, it led to polemics because with its authority, it often produced decisions that caused changes to the meanings of the text of the basic law. This shows the interpretation of the Constitution through a judicial process (judicial interpretation), which is a theory or method of thinking that explains how the judiciary should provide legal interpretation of a law, especially the basic law.
Interpreting 1945 Constitution
Justice Manahan further said that the Constitutional Court interprets the 1945 Constitution in accordance with the current situations, not just by referring to its original meaning, which will only produce insubstantial justice. Its decisions are inevitably responsive to society’s legal needs.
For the last 19 years, he said, the Court has examined and decided 3,463 constitutional cases consisting of 1,622 judicial review cases (PUU) of laws against the 1945 Constitution, 29 disputes over the authority of state institutions (SKLN), 1,136 disputes over regional head election results (PHPKada), and 676 disputes over legislative and presidential election results (PHPU). It has also endeavored to build constitutional democracy in its judicial review decisions related to regional head election, general election, and the fulfillment of citizens’ political rights.
Constitutional Court’s Authority
Justice Manahan then explained the Court’s authority and obligation. The Court was established to perform six functions: the guardian of the Constitution, the final interpreter of the Constitution, the protector of the citizens’ constitutional rights, the protector of human rights, the guardian of democracy, and the guardian of the state ideology. The six functions are interrelated and inherent in the Court’s authority and obligation as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution. For example, the Court’s function as the protector of the citizens’ constitutional rights is related to the content of the Constitution, which is to guarantee the citizens’ constitutional rights.
“This means that the protection, fulfillment, and promotion of the citizens’ rights listed in the Constitution are guaranteed by the state. This is also related to the Court’s function as the protector of human rights. Both functions are inherent in the Court’s authority to decide on the judicial review of laws against the Constitution,” he said.
Constitutional Court’s Interpretation
Justice Manahan also explained the Court’s interpretation of the articles of the 1945 Constitution reflects the effort to realize a constitutional democratic state. Changes in the meaning or interpretation of provisions in the Constitution can be done through judicial interpretation as outlined in a court decision (judicial decision). Judicial interpretation) is interpreted as a method that explains how the judiciary provides legal interpretation of the basic law.
Therefore, Justice Manahan said, interpretation requires many methods and tools. Methods in interpreting the Constitution, or constitutional interpretation, are very diverse, so the justices are free to choose methods most suitable for the case at hand. The justices use their views or abilities based on their understanding of the law. This means that in interpreting the Constitution, the justices can differ and even contradict each other in a particular case.
In practice in Indonesia, Justice Manahan continued, one can find Constitutional Court decisions that use constitutional interpretation to assess the constitutionality of a norm on matters such as the simultaneous election, the state’s right to control, and regional autonomy.
Through its position and function and by applying various methods of rechtsvinding, especially interpretation through its decisions, the Court can develop and revive the Constitution so that it remains actual and become a ‘living constitution’ while facing the challenges of globalization as well as adjusting to legal traditions in accordance with the legal needs as mandated in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution, i.e. Pancasila.
Although the justices are free to use interpretation methods, they must be in line with Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. They must be careful, pay attention, and explore the essence of the provisions in the Constitution in accordance with the values of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. This way, the Court’s decisions will be more reflective of justice for all parties. This effort is reflected in a number of decisions that are considered in favor of the people.
Of course, the Court’s determination to uphold constitutional democracy is not limited to judicial review cases but also in disputes over the results of regional head and legislative and presidential elections. In disputes over election results, the Court’s decisions do not only provide justice to the parties in dispute, but also to voters as stakeholders.
“The Court’s task does not stop at reconstructing facts of the formulation of legal norms but to find the purpose or intention behind it so that they remain living norms because they are bound to the future, that is, goals to be achieved,” Justice Manahan explained.
Thus, the interpretation of the constitution is not only done textually, but also contextually so that the Constitution remains actual.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
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.
Friday, March 10, 2023 | 21:21 WIB 107