Presidential accountability speech 'not compulsory'
JAKARTA (JP): Constitutional law experts in a hearing with a constitutional amendment committee contended on Monday the current practice of an accountability speech at the end of a presidential tenure was not a compulsory requirement for a chief executive.
Ismail Sunny from the University of Indonesia and Sri Sumantri of the Bandung-based Padjadjaran University argued that no law, including the 1945 Constitution, obligated a president to perform such a speech.
"The present Assembly has no legal basis to demand the present president to unveil an accountability speech," Ismail said during a consultation meeting with the People's Consultative Assembly's (MPR) Ad Hoc Committee.
The committee is charged with making constitutional amendments which will be brought to the Assembly's plenary session in August.
Sumantri agreed, saying such an accountability speech can only be demanded if a special session were held to examine suspected breaches of the constitution.
The presidential accountability speech took on particular significance this year as many observers acknowledge that the Assembly's rejection of former president B.J. Habibie's speech was the key factor in his decision not to run for re-election.
While the two experts noted such a speech was currently not directly mandated in the constitution, the two expressed their support for it to be formally included in future amendments.
They stressed it was an important drill to help evaluate and correct government policies.
Ismail underlined the importance of having a vibrant and legitimate Assembly as a prerequisite for such a speech.
He reminded the committee of past experiences where former president Soeharto enthusiastically presented his accountability to the Assembly "to show he was practicing democracy, although most people knew he was not democratic".
"It was impossible for the MPR under the New Order era to turn down Soeharto's accountability speech because he appointed a majority of MPR members," he said.
He said further there was no ruling on the event a president's accountability speech is rejected, other than him or her experincing moral shame.
Both Ismail and Sumantri further stressed a president must also present his speech to the Assembly which initially elected him or her president, not the current system where the members of the new Assembly are the ones making the final judgment.
Discussion
The Ad Hoc Committee also discussed other topics to be taken into consideration for amendments, such as the unitary format of the Indonesian state and the future of the Supreme Advisory Council.
The two legal experts were against several factions' proposal to dissolve the Supreme Advisory Council(DPA).
"We should not dismiss the institution only because we dislike the advisory council's former chairman A.A. Baramuli," said Ismail referring to the man who has been at the center of several national scandals.
Meanwhile, Dahlan Ranuwihardjo, a professor of constitutional law at the National University also invited by the committee, urged consistency to be maintained, such as when referring to the 1945 Constitution.
"The constitution's preamble stipulates the country's legal basis as the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila," he said in a separate meeting with the committee.
Dahlan also mentioned a number of basic principles that should not be revised, namely the format of the unitary republic state, the presidential system, the national flag and the national language Bahasa Indonesia.(rms)