Amendments fail to ensure checks and balances: Observer

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Amendments to the 1945 Constitution initiated by the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) have failed to create a political system that promotes checks and balances, an expert said.

Former Cabinet secretary and constitutional expert Marsilam Simanjuntak said here on Saturday the amendments had created constitutional "absurdity".

According to Marsilam, who is also a former attorney general, the amendments failed to promote a system of checks and balances because the politicians did not use the people's sovereignty as the main reference in drafting the amendments.

"Article 1 of the newly amended 1945 Constitution clearly states that the state is rooted in the people's sovereignty. So, this must be reflected in other articles in the Constitution. Those articles cannot be separated from each other," he said during a discussion at the Nahdlatul Ulama building here.

Instead of using people's sovereignty as their main reference point, according to Marsilam, the politicians drafted the amendments gradually and partially, producing inconsistencies and absurdity.

In his explanation, Marsilam said the original 1945 Constitution did not encourage checks and balances, but simply trusted the Constitution as a tool to bring prosperity to the people.

He said the Constitution fully mandates the president to bring prosperity to the people, creating a political system that was executive-heavy.

The downfall of former president Soeharto and the ensuing reform movement led to constitutional amendments, but the incomprehensive process had produced inconsistencies, he said.

"The amendments try to shift the executive-heavy system to a legislative-heavy system. But the politicians fail to achieve this because they keep the spirit of the old Constitution."

Marsilam said the amendments to the 1945 Constitution did not bring improvement, but rather absurdity.

Article 20 of the Constitution says that bills agreed on by the House and the government will take effect in 30 days, with or without the endorsement of the president.

At least three laws -- on broadcasting, state finance and the establishment of Riau province -- have taken effect without the approval of President Megawati Soekarnoputri, despite the fact that Cabinet ministers were actively involved in the deliberation of the bills.

This shows that ministers can have a different stance from that of the president in the deliberation of bills, despite the fact that they are meant to represent the president in the deliberations, he said.

"Isn't this absurd?" Marsilam asked.

Another absurdity, he said, is the inclusion of the legislative right to summon the president for questioning over certain issues, known as interpelasi.

Marsilam said that interpelasi was known only in the parliamentary system, and since Indonesia's system was presidential it was not relevant here.

The adoption of impeachment procedures also makes no sense because the system is useless here, he said.

According to Marsilam, the United States has procedures for impeachment because a sitting U.S. president is protected from legal prosecution. So, in order to enable prosecution of the president, impeachment is used.

"We don't need impeachment because we can prosecute and send the president to prison," he said.

The Constitutional Commission is now attempting to synthesize the amendments to the Constitution, and is expected to submit the results of its work in April.