House fails to endorse Constitutional Court bill

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The House of Representatives (DPR) broke its promise to endorse the much-awaited Constitutional Court bill as it failed to reach agreement with the government on several issues.

The House plenary meeting agreed to organize another meeting on Aug. 11 to endorse the bill, with the hope that both the government and the House could come to a common understanding on contentious issues in the next few days.

The House and government were unable to agree on two issues -- the educational background of justices appointed to the court and whether or not the constitutional court's decisions could be contested in court.

With regard to the educational requirement, the government insisted that someone vying for the post had to have a degree in law.

Some factions in the House, however, said that having a law degree was not compulsory and it was more important for candidates to be professional in their approach and have a good knowledge of the Constitution.

The second issue was a stipulation in Article 64 that the court, ranging from the district court to the Supreme Court, cannot become an object of dispute -- meaning the constitutional court's decisions must be binding and cannot be contested in court.

Deputy committee chairman Zainal Arifin of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) disclosed that all factions had a similar opinion on this issue.

"However, some factions want to insert that article and others disagree," Zainal told The Jakarta Post.

Although formally only two issues remained unsettled, Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra wanted to elaborate Article 10 on the authority of the Constitutional Court to pass judgment on alleged power abuse by the president.

The demand was floated at a meeting of the House special committee after his meeting with President Megawati Soekarnoputri and Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at the State Palace at 10 a.m.

Article 10 (2) states that the Constitutional Court is obliged to pass judgment over any allegation of the House that the president and/or vice president have violated the law in the form of state treason, corruption, bribery, serious crime or misconduct, or are no longer fit to remain in office.

Yusril emphasized that there was no clear explanation as to the definition of "hard crime" or "misconduct."

"We must produce a clear definition. Let us not create a situation in which the president can easily be impeached simply by spreading rumors that he or she is guilty of misconduct," Yusril said.

Citing an example, Yusril said that gambling was a crime but misconduct was an ethical matter, therefore the two should not be mixed up.

At a meeting presided over by chairman Zein Badjeber on Thursday afternoon, the House special committee deliberating the Constitutional Court bill agreed to extend its deliberations to Aug. 5.

Badjeber, of the United Development Party (PPP), said the government would present proposals on the unresolved issues on Aug. 2 and the committee would discuss the bill until Aug. 5.

"We hope the bill can be brought to a plenary meeting on Aug. 6. Therefore, there should still be time for the recruitment of judges," Badjeber said.

Yusril stated that despite a very tight timetable before the deadline on Aug. 17, the government and legislators would try their best to set up a Constitutional Court and recruit nine judges before that date.