Accountability of high state agencies

Except for the stipulation that the President as a mandatory of the People's Consultative Assembly has to be accountable to the General Session of the Assembly, the 1945 Constitution does not regulate as to whom the High State Institutions such as State Audit Agency (BPK), Supreme Advisory Council (DPA), Supreme Justice (MA) and House of Representatives (DPR) should be accountable. These high state institutions could also make a mistake in carrying out their tasks. Or the head of one agency could make a mistake (Bapindo's bad credit case, for example, which involved Sudomo who is Chief of the Supreme Advisory Council). Shall we continue to do things the way we do merely because of the absence of needed regulations in our Constitution?

Please note that the Republic of Indonesia is a state based on law. In the name of justice, however, no single citizen is not subject to the law, especially when found guilty of some wrong doing. Also we should remember that our Constitution is flexible in nature. The People's Consultative Assembly can produce a decision to the effect that high state institutions are accountable to the Assembly.

This is a shortcoming of the 1945 Constitution. As in the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, the Assembly could set up a Working Body charged with the task of supervising and monitoring the performances of all high state agencies. This body should work on a "full time" basis, for a period of five years and present its report to the General Session of the Assembly.

It is really strange, why should the President be accountable to the newly elected members of the Assembly, as is practiced now? How could the new Assembly possibly know all problems left by its predecessor? The President's accountability is nothing but a formality that is accepted by the new Assembly without comment or any actions whatsoever. Thus the House as well as the Assembly's factions should pay due attention to this matter.

SUHARSONO HADIKUSUMO

Jakarta