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