Constitutional reform debate at snail's pace

Bambang Nurbianto, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The near-deadlocked debate on constitutional reform inched forward a bit last week when four major political factions agreed to put it on the agenda of next month's People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) annual sessions.

Not only that, they also set their ego aside when they assured public participation later when a constitutional commission is eventually established.

From the outset, the MPR committee in charge of deliberating on the reform during next month's session had fiercely adhered to their belief that amending the constitution is the MPR's exclusive right.

The four major parties which have agreed to put constitutional reform on next month's agenda include the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), the Golkar Party, the United Development Party (PPP) and the National Awakening Party (PKB).

Ironically, the small Muslim-based Justice Party and National Mandate Party (PAN) which form the "Reform Faction" remain adamant in their view that it is unnecessary to form a constitutional commission because the MPR already has an ad-hoc committee which can handle constitutional reform.

The progress received a lukewarm reception among non- governmental organization (NGO) activists who campaign for an independent constitutional commission, which excludes MPR members.

Of the four major parties which have agreed to put the reform debate on the agenda, only the PKB proposed a total reform of the constitution as the NGOs are also demanding. The other three want only some amendments.

Currently, the Assembly's ad-hoc committee is working on possible constitutional amendment reform.

Hadar N. Gumay of the Center for Electoral Reform (Cetro) said that NGOs were not entirely happy with the four parties' proposals because they still want involvement of the MPR to be discussed.

NGOs argue that MPR members should not be involved because it would be a conflict of interest.

"Our demand is to set up an independent constitutional commission so that the product will be free from short-term political interests. And members of the commission can work full time on such a project," Hadar told The Jakarta Post recently.

NGOs cite the Philippines case as their model for constitution reform.

The Philippines' draft of the constitution was written by a 48-member constitutional commission whose members were selected from 1,000 nominees from a wide spectrum of the society: professionals, academics, farmers, labor leaders, youth, women, religious groups, political parties, ethnic minorities, media, and the military.

The final draft of the Philippine constitution was ratified by an overwhelming 83 percent of the voters in the plebiscite held in February 1987.

Local activists still differ however, on who could become members of such a national team.

Mulyana W. Kusumah, a senior executive of the Election Monitoring Independent Committee (KIPP), said that the team should at least comprise three elements: MPR members, academicians and community figures.

Smita Notosusanto of Cetro has stressed that all members of the team should be free from any political interests.

"How can they make a constitution while they have their own political agenda?" she said.

Wilfrido V. Villacorta, a delegate of the Philippine constitutional commission, said in a recent seminar in Jakarta, "A constitution is supposed to amalgamate the interests of all segments of the society. It is a reflection of the collective sentiments of the people and the political and social conditions."