Amendments fail to ensure checks and balances: Observer

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.