Sat, 02 May 1998

Constitution needs changes, experts claim

JAKARTA (JP): Legal experts called yesterday for revisions in the 1945 Constitution to plug loopholes allowing for abuse of power.

Prof. Harun Alrasid said its shortcomings including contents open to various interpretations, which could be used by the government as the means to justify its policies.

"Reform in the 1945 Constitution is needed if we want to uphold democracy, if we want a democratic government and if we want to empower all high state institutions in accordance to their function," he said in a seminar on clean governance organized by Nasional University here yesterday.

The lecturer in the law schools of the University of Indonesia and the Nasional University said revisions should clearly delineate areas left vague in the 1945 Constitution, such as the function of state institutions, the limit on presidential terms of office and general elections.

"The new constitution should limit the presidential term of office to only two periods at the most," Harun said.

He continued that "the constitution should also clearly specify that all members of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) and House of Representatives (DPR) should be elected".

An amended constitution should also state that "general elections be held using a district system and that both the Assembly and the House consistently perform its task as a social control to the executive".

The government's steadfast stance over the years has been that the 1945 Constitution cannot be changed or amended.

Harun challenged this view, pointing to Article 3 of the 1945 Constitution which states that the MPR has the right to pass a constitution.

Article 37 says that any change to the Constitution requires the approval of two-thirds of the Assembly.

"So, according the 1945 Constitution, it is quite possible for the country to have a new constitution," he said, stressing that constitutional reform should be aimed at complementing and completing the 1945 Constitution and upholding democracy.

He explained that the government's refusal to budge from its opposition to constitutional reform was based on a 1973 Assembly decree stating that changes would not be made to the 1945 Constitution.

"We should realize that Article 3 has a higher rank than the MPR decree," he argued.

Ineffective

Meanwhile, A. Dahlan Ranuwihardjo, dean of the School of Law of Nasional University, said the law would continue to remain ineffective in eradicating corruption and nepotism if democracy was not upheld.

"Freedom of speech, openness, human rights and freedom of association should be respected in creating a conducive climate to uphold democracy. People should not be barred from airing their opinion, from criticizing the government.

"Besides, students should not be barred from staging rallies in streets and from going to the DPR and government offices with their aspirations," he said.

Dahlan also expressed dissatisfaction with the DPR for failing to control the government.

"During the 30 years of the New Order government, the House has never said 'no' to wrong policies made by the government. So, that's why it is unlikely now for the House to call a MPR special session to ask for the government's accountability of the latest crisis.

"What the students are demanding in their movement can be seen as an evidence that they are taking over the DPR function," he said, referring to the wave of student demonstrations demanding political and economic reform. (rms)