"Kompas" Poll: Public Asks DPR-Government to Involve Civil Society When Revisioning the Constitutional Court Law

The "Kompas" poll shows that the majority of the public wants the revision of the Constitutional Court Law to involve the community.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

Constitutional Court (MK) building on Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat, Jakarta, Saturday (16/3/2024).

The process of the fourth revision of Law Number 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court by the DPR and the government is unknown to the majority of the public. In fact, the public, at least elements of civil society, should be involved in the discussion of every law as mandated by the MK decision in 2020 that the legislative process should involve meaningful participation from the public.

This non-involvement of the public can be seen from the results of the Kompas R&D poll on 20-22 May 2024. The majority of respondents admitted that they did not follow the information or even did not know anything regarding the revision of the Constitutional Court Law which is still rolling today. Only 18 percent of respondents said they were aware of the revision. Most of them got their information from national television news.

There are two factors to understand the public's ignorance of this matter. Firstly, the discussion on the revision of the Constitutional Court Law was conducted secretly and behind closed doors. From various official channels of information, ranging from websites to social media accounts of state institutions, there is no information related to the plan for discussion until the meeting on May 13, 2024.

There is no information specifically on the MK website regarding the revision of the Constitutional Court Law. The page tends to be dominated by coverage of the general election results dispute trial (PHPU). Both the official website and the MK's social media accounts on various platforms almost entirely contain content on the PHPU dispute trial, with occasional information regarding the publication of the latest issue of MK magazine or a number of events attended by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo. Access to public information related to the revision of the Constitutional Court Law really relies on the journalistic work of the mainstream main mass media.

Also read: PDI-P's rejection of the Constitutional Court Bill should not be just a gimmick

KOMPAS/NORBERTUS ARYA DWIANGGA MARTIAR

The atmosphere of the DPR Commission III working meeting at the Parliament Complex, Jakarta, Wednesday (23/11/2022).

Similar to the Constitutional Court, the DPR as the institution authorized to form laws also lacks public information regarding the revision of the Constitutional Court Law. The only news on its website contains information that the DPR has no intention of holding a secret meeting to discuss the revision. Deputy Chairman of DPR, Sufmi Dasco Ahmad, stated that there is no intention or other plans behind the revision session.

A politician from the Gerindra party faction explained that the revision of the Constitutional Court Law had already begun last year, but was momentarily hindered due to the election. This discussion was also delayed due to an objection letter from former Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs, Mahfud MD. At that time, Mahfud requested that the DPR not immediately ratify the changes to the Constitutional Court Law, but continue after receiving the approval of Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs, Hadi Tjahjanto.

Secondly, besides being an elitist issue, the focus of the public since the end of the 2024 Election until the end of this month is still revolving around the Constitutional Court's dispute hearing (PHPU), both for the presidential and legislative elections. According to the KPU schedule, the PHPU for the legislative election will only be concluded on June 7-10, 2024, when the decision copy is read.

Public neglect

Throughout the process of revising the Constitutional Court Law, the community, especially practitioners and academics, have sent open letters to President Joko Widodo and DPR Chairman Puan Maharani. They are requesting that the legislative process for the Constitutional Court Bill be stopped because it threatens the principles of a constitutional state, democracy and the independence of the Constitutional Court.

However, unfortunately, President Jokowi, who also has the authority to form laws, seems to ignore the issue and fully hands it over to the DPR. Meanwhile, the DPR does not acknowledge the public's protests and continues the revision process of the MK Law. Currently, the revision of the MK Law only awaits approval for its enactment into law in the DPR's plenary session.

The neglect of the public is also felt by the majority of respondents in this survey. As many as 72.6 percent of respondents believe that the DPR and the government should listen to and involve civil society. This is a form of real democracy application that has been felt only as idealism so far, especially in the formation of laws.

Looking back, precisely at the end of the first period of President Jokowi's administration, a similar pattern also occurred in the process of revising the KPK Law. Large demonstrations that claimed lives followed the passage of the revised law. However, there was no real change afterwards.

Throughout the period of 2020-2024, out of 24 bills that have been discussed and approved into laws, at least three laws have been controversial in their discussions. Those three laws are the Mineral and Coal Mining Law, the Capital City of Indonesia Law, and the Job Creation Law. In terms of procedure, all three were discussed in a relatively short time frame, ranging from two to six months. Criticisms and suggestions from various circles were also ignored. Demonstrations that followed the approval of the laws were seen as passing by in vain.

Also read: Traces of Public Neglect of Jokowi Era Regulation Drafting

KOMPAS/WAWAN H PRABOWO

Students try to avoid tear gas fired by police during a protest rejecting the revision of the KPK law and the draft Criminal Code, in front of the Parliamentary Complex in Senayan, Jakarta, on Tuesday (24/9/2019).

However, the Constitutional Court, through the formal test verdict of the Job Creation Law in 2020, has emphasized the importance of meaningful public participation in the deliberation of the bill. The meaningful participation outlined in the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 must meet three prerequisites, namely the right to be heard, the right to have opinions considered, and the right to receive explanations or answers to the opinions given. Public participation is especially applied to groups of communities directly affected or with concerns regarding the bill being discussed.

Independence of judges

Previously, the Constitutional Court Law had undergone three amendments, from Law Number 24/2003 to Law Number 8/2011, which was then revised to Law Number 7/2020. Article 23 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 8/2011 reads that a constitutional judge is honorably dismissed due to the end of their term. In this fourth revision of the Constitutional Court Law, there are three revised points, namely Article 23A, 27A, and 87. Article 23A and 87 rearrange the term of office for constitutional judges, while Article 27A pertains to the composition of the Constitutional Court Honorary Council.

In the fourth revision of the Constitutional Court Law, Article 87 states that judges who have served for five years can only continue their tenure with approval from their endorsing institution. This rule contains political elements compared to the previous rule, which had a stricter approach where the continuation of the Constitutional Court judges' tenure was decided through confirmation from their endorsing institution.

The fourth revision of the Constitutional Court Law is seen as an effort to cripple the Constitutional Court by arranging the composition of judges within it in such a way. Furthermore, it is suspected that future governments will find it easier to push through policies when questioned in the Constitutional Court.

Also read: Serious Violations in the Constitutional Court Law Revision Process

Changes to the Constitutional Court Law are also seen as one of the ways to disrupt judicial independence. This perception is felt by nearly half of the respondents. Meanwhile, 42.1 percent of the respondents still view optimistically that the rule changes will not disrupt the constitutional judges' independence.

However, when viewed from the background of the respondents, the group with medium and high levels of education tend to be more critical. Both of these groups tend to see that the regulation could disrupt the independence of constitutional judges. For some members of society, it may not be easy to assess the Constitutional Court, especially since the institution has been embroiled in controversy over the past year, particularly since the Constitutional Court decision regarding the requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

Ultimately, discussions of any bill should not ignore the public's voice. Ignoring the public's voice not only violates the Constitutional Court's decision, but also denies the essence of democracy that has been agreed upon as the system implemented in this Republic since the 1998 Reform.