Another Amendment?
Many people are surprised these days upon hearing thoughts about an amendment to the Constitution, and even more so when these thoughts come from political parties. Haven’t political parties been mostly silent on this matter thus far?
It is not easy to guess whether this is actual intent or simply exploring the situation. Therefore, it is not surprising that many are asking questions. Is it easy to prepare the material, and is there enough time for political mobilization when the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) is nearing the end of its term?
However, it would be better if all are responded to with calm. There is no need to be arrogant, cynical or suspicious, especially mockery that hits back at the past and others. What is needed is managing the issue calmly, carefully and wisely.
Don\'t forget that just a few years after the fourth amendment in 2002, various boisterous judgments and discourses filled the air. In the past, some welcomed it. Many others also considered it a step too far and rejected the amendment. There were even those who asked to restore the Constitution to its original iteration, before it was amended. Some others asked for a partial change, but only for their group. What was even more interesting was the fact that some asked that it be overhauled. All had their own reasons. At that time, no reaction or response seemed forthcoming from political parties, whether their leadership or members.
With regard to recent thoughts on a constitutional amendment, whether it should be partial or a bit more, a lot or even an overhaul, it would be good to consider something that deals with the approach. Just look: If there is more than one party and each one calls for an amendment, even if only in part, it seems no one is bold enough to guarantee that the eventual amendment will leave many areas untouched.
With the wealth of collective experience, it will be appropriate for us to try to manage this amendment issue properly and appropriately. The reason is simple: It has to do with the Constitution. It is our basic legal foundation. If it requires careful planning and a long process, yes, that is how we should respond. Dealing with this foundational legal matter should not involve arbitrary thinking or pragmatism, especially if it is only for the short-term interests of a specific group. All should be considered carefully in advance, not just in matters of principle and substance or the direction, reach and how the amendments are implemented, but also about time.
Authority
If the Constitution is understood as the basic law of the land, as a document of a political and social agreement among a people who have become a nation’s citizenry, the most basic and simplest question that arises is, who actually authorized a change to their agreement? Isn\'t this a contract between them? If all is for the first draft and enactment, many explanations might be available. However, the issue is different when dealing with subsequent alterations or replacements. Before it was amended, the Constitution only confirmed the authority of the MPR, which is simply to stipulate. It was also thus when the institution was imbued with nggegirisi (formidability) as the highest institution, the holder of the people’s mandate and the executor of the people\'s sovereignty. Its basic duty to just stipulate did not change!
The political power of that period changed the aforementioned provisions, using the extraordinary occasion following the amendment. The MPR does not only stipulate, but also has the authority to change. This was actually rather strange, as its authority increased, while its position, function and role were diminished. The post-amendment MPR is no longer the highest institution; it neither holds the people’s mandate nor is it the executor of the people\'s sovereignty.
Nevertheless, leaving the process without a plan or any rules might only cause commotion.
The law is the law. It must not only be obeyed, but also carried out. The question is still the same: What is the basis for the institution that has been made "nothing" to even be given the allowance to change the contract of the people, who are said to possess sovereignty? In the not-too distant past, when the MPR still held a strong state position, changing the Constitution was designed to undergo a referendum. Later experience taught that the changing the Constitution is too large a matter to hand over its complete authority to only a single institution (even the MPR) that is not even entrusted with executing the people’s sovereignty. Nevertheless, leaving the process without a plan or any rules might only cause commotion.
Rules of play
If not the MPR, then who and how? Give it back to the people. If the people are allergic to the old terms, they may look for other terms. Compiling the changes and applying them to the Constitution is not a matter of mere expertise, but also a matter of wisdom, maturity and statesmanship. It is not merely academic, let alone technical. If it must be restored, then it is clear that good tools and mechanisms are needed in order to make it easier for the people to grasp the intentions, and then realize and express their intent to approve or reject the planned changes.
Back to the current desire for a constitutional amendment, this might be difficult to realize in the near future. Therefore, it is better if the MPR makes provisions in the next MPR session by first creating the rules and procedures for amending the Constitution. Making these rules that will serve as a benchmark for all parties to follow is very important, so that the issues and process of the amendment will not be overrun with uncontrolled rumors or political tools. At the very least, the MPR remains a vehicle towards change, although not in its entirety. In what ways does the MPR not have full authority, and how should such benchmarks be made?
The MPR may only legalize the draft (changes) for inclusion in the Constitution.
First, the direction of the amendment must be clear: to alter, restructure or replace. Second, if the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) and Pancasila are fixed prices, the amendment should not touch the Preamble and should be restricted to the Body of the Constitution. Third, a State Committee on Amending the Constitution, or a Constitution Committee, should first be formed to settle the matters of substance, structure and systems. Fourth, the State Committee should itemize which principles may be changed, for what reasons and in which direction, as well as the final forms of the principles to be developed. Fifth, the State Committee must disseminate information and request the people’s approval or objection – as per the function of the General Elections Commission (KPU) for the elections. Sixth, the State Committee must compile the draft, and upon obtaining approval, formulate the changes in the Constitutional format. Seventh, the MPR holds the political authority to plan the change, but the MPR itself may not be subject to change. The MPR may only legalize the draft (changes) for inclusion in the Constitution.
From the third to seventh benchmarks, the MPR has authority but not full authority. With this mindset, the people become the owners of sovereignty in the real sense. Forming the State Committee can be the responsibility of the President, and the committee should be responsible to him. Its membership should include all those who possess expertise and maturity in various aspects of national and state life: politics, ideology, economics, social affairs, culture, law and national security. In its establishment, the President should be given enough room to take the initiative in discussing it, through whatever forum, along with leaders of state institutions such as the MPR, the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), alongside the nation’s teachers, education figures, universities, leaders of the Indonesian Military (TNI) and the National Police (Polri), political party leaders, regional heads, the media, social organizations, religions, cultural figures, professional associations or experts, and other elements that represent the nation. The work of the State Committee should result in the draft of a modified constitution that the President should submit to the MPR for approval.
Again, a constitutional amendment is indeed too large a matter to be left entirely to the MPR.
Bambang Kesowo, Chairman, National Resilience Institute (Lemhannas) Alumni Advisory Council