MPR decision No.3

MPR decision No.3

I would like to comment on decision No.3/1978 by the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR) on the position of and the work
relationship between the state's highest institution and the
state's high institutions. According to the decision, the highest
institution is the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), while
the high institutions are the President, the Supreme Advisory
Council (DPA), the House of Representatives (DPR), the State
Audit Agency (BPK) and the Supreme Court (MA).

Article 11 paragraph two refers to the constitutional role of
the Supreme Court which gives its legal opinion to the state's
high institutions. The article reads: "The Supreme Court is
allowed to give its consideration in the legal field, whether
solicited or not, to the state's high institutions."

In that legal context, it is therefore not appropriate that
the Supreme Court as the holder of the highest judiciary
authority must be given guidance or messages by ministers who are
assistants to the President.

In the recent national conference of the Supreme Court in
Yogyakarta the Armed Forces Commander, the Attorney General, the
Interior Minister and the Coordinating Minister for Politics and
Security gave their guidance and messages. But it should have
been the other way around. It was the Supreme Court who should
have given the guidance and messages, whether asked to or not.
That is if the Supreme Court is indeed authoritative and
independent, and does not let itself be influenced. Also,
Minister/State Secretary Moerdiono once paid a visit to the
Supreme Court. Hopefully he did not carry an instruction from the
government to the Supreme Court.

The government recently submitted four draft bills on taxes to
the House of Representatives (DPR). It is essential that the
Supreme Court give its legal opinion and consideration when the
House discusses these draft bills. It is recommended that the
House solicit the legal advice and consideration of the Supreme
Court in order to produce laws which are correct. They should not
be contrary to the laws in force, should be just and should give
legal certainty to the people.

The Supreme Court should remember that they should act
independently, free from any influence. Article 1 of Law No.14 of
1970 reads, "An independent judiciary authority implies the
understanding that legal authority is free from intervention from
other state authorities and free from coercion, directives or
recommendations coming from extra-judiciary sides, except in
cases allowed by the law."

What is the legal basis that ministers have given guidance and
messages to officials of the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court
institution according to the 1945 Constitution as the judiciary
institution is on a par with the President and the House of
Representatives. It is perplexing that the Supreme Court is
willing to receive guidance and messages by ministers. Is this
the latest trend, a model created by the Supreme Court?

SUHARSONO HADIKUSUMO

Jakarta