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)