A Safe Choice for the House

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

The Constitutional Court (MK) holds a hearing on four judicial review cases, presided over by MK Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the MK Building, Jakarta, Thursday (14/2/2019). The Constitutional Court in its verdict rejected all lawsuits for petitions for judicial review of the State Civil Apparatus, National Education System, Professional Education, Professional Degrees and Associations and Limited Liability Companies.

The House of Representatives’ Commission III chose the safe path forward by reappointing constitutional justices Aswanto and Wahiduddin Adams on March 12.

The two justices, whose first terms will end on March 21, will continue to serve for four more years. It was a safe choice based on the pragmatic considerations of tackling disputes in the 2019 election, as reflected in the statement of Commission III chair Kahar Muzakir: “Rather than electing new and untested individuals, we choose those with experience.” Commission III deputy chair Trimedya Panjaitan gave a similar comment.

We must respect the House for its choice. Public criticism that the House is playing too safely must also be accepted. The two justices are deemed to be lacking in their records of protecting human rights, freedom of expression and minority groups. They are also deemed to lack responsiveness in dealing with social dynamics. With their reappointment, we hope the Constitutional Court can prepare to face various election disputes.

The MK should have been more responsive in resolving constitutional disputes. As guardian of the constitutional and ideology, the MK should be more responsive in tackling issues related to people’s basic freedoms, including voting rights. The MK should stand at the forefront – through its ruling – in defending citizens’ basic rights, including freedom of expression, association and worship.

The nine MK justices must foster the court’s authority and dignity. The MK’s final and binding rulings must be made on the grounds of legal-constitutional argumentations and a deep spirit of nationhood written by the constitutional justices themselves. Recently, we found out that MK rulings can be contested through the rulings of other courts, such as in the case of political party members who are also candidates for seats on the Regional Representatives Council (DPD). This adds to the chaos of our state governance.

KOMPAS/RADITYA HELABUMI

The Constitutional Court (MK) holds a hearing on four judicial review cases, presided over by MK Chief Justice Anwar Usman at the MK Building, Jakarta, Thursday (14/2/2019). The Constitutional Court in its verdict rejected all lawsuits for petitions for judicial review of the State Civil Apparatus, National Education System, Professional Education, Professional Degrees and Associations and Limited Liability Companies.

At the high level of state governance, as statesmen with deep knowledge of the Constitution, MK justices should not be ordinary people but rather those who are not dealing with personal issues. MK justices should be impeccable and hold fast to the Code of Ethics, or the Sapta Karsa Hutama.

At the institutional level, the MK’s system must be designed to prevent any possibility of abuse or deviation from the Code of Ethics, as in the case of former MK chief justice Akil Mochtar and former MK justice Patrialis Akbar. The tragic cases of both justices was caused by a lack of a supervision and an understanding of MK justices only in terms of division of labor. This is despite, to quote Satjipto Rahardjo, constitutional justices being spits of fire. Once a justice has spoken, everyone must abide by what they say. On the other hand, even after one mistake, the institution will no longer be trustworthy.