Expert: MPR Visit to MK and MA Could Intervene in Judicial Independence

Constitutional law expert Bivitri Susanti has criticised a visit by the leadership of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) to the Constitutional Court (MK) and the Supreme Court (MA). She stated that the meeting could create the impression of intervention in judicial institutions, which must remain independent and free from influence by other state bodies. Bivitri stressed that in the constitutional system, the MA and MK must be protected from any form of interference, whether through memoranda of understanding or meetings that could affect institutional independence. “Moreover, the MA and MK are judicial institutions which, in theory, must not be intervened in at all, bound by MoUs, or anything of the sort,” Bivitri told reporters on Tuesday (14/7). She emphasised that judges in both institutions must be given space to decide cases independently without pressure or direction from other bodies. “Let them make decisions according to the cases that come to them. There should be no intervention, no need for advice in the form of courtesy calls from other institutions,” she said. Bivitri assessed that there are two possible reasons behind the MPR leadership’s visit to the MK and MA. The first is a desire to restore the MPR’s image as the highest state institution, as it was before the amendment to the 1945 Constitution. “The MPR wants, especially its leadership, to be considered a separate institution, the highest state institution like before the amendment,” she said. However, Bivitri noted that after the constitutional amendment, the MPR is no longer the highest state institution. The MPR only exercises the authority stipulated in Article 3 of the 1945 Constitution, namely amending and enacting the Constitution, inaugurating the president and vice president, and dismissing the president and/or vice president according to constitutional mechanisms. She also reminded that MPR leaders are members of the House of Representatives (DPR) or the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) who carry out MPR functions when in session, and therefore do not have special authority to build institutional relations with the judiciary. The second possibility highlighted by Bivitri is an attempt to weaken the independence of judicial power. She said this suspicion is reinforced by the signing of a memorandum of understanding regarding copies of rulings after the MPR’s visit to the MK. “The second possibility is that there is a desire to weaken the judiciary, because the DPR itself is already weak, as we know, seven out of eight factions in the DPR are all part of the KIM Plus coalition,” she said. Bivitri also assessed that if a similar move were made directly by the President, the potential for public criticism would be greater. She therefore suspects the MPR is being positioned to carry out this agenda by building an image as the highest state institution. She stressed that every state institution must carry out its functions according to the authority granted by the constitution and that maintaining distance between branches of power is an essential requirement for preserving judicial independence and the rule of law.