MPR decision No.3<\/p>\n
I would like to comment on decision No.3\/1978 by the People's
\nConsultative Assembly (MPR) on the position of and the work
\nrelationship between the state's highest institution and the
\nstate's high institutions. According to the decision, the highest
\ninstitution is the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), while
\nthe high institutions are the President, the Supreme Advisory
\nCouncil (DPA), the House of Representatives (DPR), the State
\nAudit Agency (BPK) and the Supreme Court (MA).<\/p>\n
Article 11 paragraph two refers to the constitutional role of
\nthe Supreme Court which gives its legal opinion to the state's
\nhigh institutions. The article reads: \"The Supreme Court is
\nallowed to give its consideration in the legal field, whether
\nsolicited or not, to the state's high institutions.\"<\/p>\n
In that legal context, it is therefore not appropriate that
\nthe Supreme Court as the holder of the highest judiciary
\nauthority must be given guidance or messages by ministers who are
\nassistants to the President.<\/p>\n
In the recent national conference of the Supreme Court in
\nYogyakarta the Armed Forces Commander, the Attorney General, the
\nInterior Minister and the Coordinating Minister for Politics and
\nSecurity gave their guidance and messages. But it should have
\nbeen the other way around. It was the Supreme Court who should
\nhave given the guidance and messages, whether asked to or not.
\nThat is if the Supreme Court is indeed authoritative and
\nindependent, and does not let itself be influenced. Also,
\nMinister\/State Secretary Moerdiono once paid a visit to the
\nSupreme Court. Hopefully he did not carry an instruction from the
\ngovernment to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
The government recently submitted four draft bills on taxes to
\nthe House of Representatives (DPR). It is essential that the
\nSupreme Court give its legal opinion and consideration when the
\nHouse discusses these draft bills. It is recommended that the
\nHouse solicit the legal advice and consideration of the Supreme
\nCourt in order to produce laws which are correct. They should not
\nbe contrary to the laws in force, should be just and should give
\nlegal certainty to the people.<\/p>\n
The Supreme Court should remember that they should act
\nindependently, free from any influence. Article 1 of Law No.14 of
\n1970 reads, \"An independent judiciary authority implies the
\nunderstanding that legal authority is free from intervention from
\nother state authorities and free from coercion, directives or
\nrecommendations coming from extra-judiciary sides, except in
\ncases allowed by the law.\"<\/p>\n
What is the legal basis that ministers have given guidance and
\nmessages to officials of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court
\ninstitution according to the 1945 Constitution as the judiciary
\ninstitution is on a par with the President and the House of
\nRepresentatives. It is perplexing that the Supreme Court is
\nwilling to receive guidance and messages by ministers. Is this
\nthe latest trend, a model created by the Supreme Court?<\/p>\n
SUHARSONO HADIKUSUMO<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/mpr-decision-no3-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }