Govt, DPR at odds over judges for new court

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Protracted debate between the House of Representatives (DPR) and the government over the qualification of judges may hamper the establishment of the constitutional court.

Justice and human rights minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra said on Friday that the government rejected the House's proposal that constitutional court candidates need not hold a bachelor of law degree.

In an apparent about face, the House put forward the idea in contradiction to its own draft on the constitutional court, which stipulates that a judge of the constitutional court must hold a bachelor of law degree and have 10 years experience in legal work. The ideas were supported by several factions within the House.

"Our stance is final. If the House rejects it, let it be," he said in his office on Friday. The deadline for setting up the constitutional court is only two weeks away.

Yusril said the government's stance was based on the conviction that judges must have a strong background in law.

"It is okay if a candidate holds a masters degree in politics or economics, but he must also be a law school graduate. We can not accept the idea of a candidate holding a masters degree in law if he has no bachelor degree in law," he said.

Yusril said that the government also required the candidate to have 10 years of experience in legal work.

The House expects that candidates who have experience as legislators could also apply for the posts.

The government has strongly rejected the idea saying that a legislator held a political post rather than a professional one.

The amended 1945 Constitution mandates that both the House and the government must establish the constitutional court by Aug. 17. However, both sides only began deliberating the draft last month amid strong public pressure.

The constitutional court law is expected to be approved on July 30.

The constitutional court will be in charge of settling constitutional disputes. The court will have the authority to review existing laws, settle disputes among state institutions, dissolve political parties and resolve any disputes over election results.

It will be called on should the House accuse the president and/or vice president be accused of violating the Constitution.

Critics say any delay in its establishment would mean that the Supreme Court, already swamped with cases, would be called upon to settle any constitutional disputes that might arise in the meantime.