New regulation on presidency needed: Experts

New regulation on presidency needed: Experts

JAKARTA (JP): Four constitutional law experts have called for
clear regulation of the presidential institution in order to
prevent a concentration of power in the hands of the executive
branch of the government in the future.

Harun Alrasid and Yusril Ihza Mahendra, both from University
of Indonesia, along with Sri Sumantri and Ramlan Surbakti from
Airlangga University in Surabaya, East Java, argued for the need
to regulate the presidential institution in order to pave the way
for a more democratic government during a seminar on the
presidency held here yesterday.

They contended that articles in the 1945 Constitution
pertaining to the presidency contained a number of ambiguities
which had been exploited to maintain the status quo.

They also argued that democracy could not be upheld and legal
supremacy could not be guaranteed for as long as the president
wielded power to an extent that other state institutions were
rendered impotent.

They said the presidency should be limited to a maximum of two
terms in office and that the president's prerogative rights
should be redefined.

The Constitution only stipulates that a president's term in
office is five years and that he or she can be reelected for
another consecutive period.

Divided

However, the four experts were divided on how the presidential
institution should be regulated.

Harun and Sumantri wanted the Constitution to be replaced by a
new one which placed clear limits on the president's power.

They contended the Constitution was not a sacred document
worthy of veneration, but a living entity which had to evolve
with the times.

Yusril and Ramelan believed it was unlikely that the
government and the powerful Armed Forces would agree to the
drafting of a new constitution, and argued that instead it would
be "better for the government to make the necessary changes to
the existing one," Yusril said.

"For the time being, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR)
could issue a decree or a law regulating the presidential
institution," Yusril said.

Similarly Ramlan said that given the opposition likely to be
met from the government and the Armed Forces, and because of
other pressing national issues, an amendment would be a more
practical way of placing greater control on the presidential
institution.

He stressed the need to restrict presidential power so that
other state institutions, including the MPR and the House of
Representatives (DPR), could perform the roles defined for them
in the Constitution.

"There must be 'a check and balance' between the executive
power and the legislative body and other state institutions," he
said.

All four were united in their condemnation of the New Order
government's abuse of the Constitution, which they said had been
exploited to maintain the status quo.

Sumantri said that in the past, democracy could not be upheld
because power was concentrated in the hands of then president
Soeharto and the legislative body and the MPR were rendered
powerless.

"The MPR and DPR became unable to control the executive branch
of the government because of the concentration of power in the
president's hands," he said. (rms/27)