Waiting For The Courage Of The DPR To Open The Pandora MK Box

Illustration Of Images By Ilham Andri Winarko VOI

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) as the last guardian of the constitution in this country, tarnished and the verdict that is the crown has been broken. Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman, who is usually referred to as His Majesty in the courtroom, juriru gave the worst example by getting the most ethical reports from the Indonesian people.

Not to mention the added debate from the best legal experts owned by the motherland to color the world of Indonesian reporting due to the Constitutional Court's decision No.90/PUU-XII/2023 regarding the presidential/cawapres age limit for the last 3 weeks.

The power of judges is an independent power. The judge is a representative of God on earth to enforce the law for justice and truth seekers. Based on this, the judge of course has the right to immunity which is recorded in the 1945 Constitution and needs to be properly guarded.

The judge's immunity, independent, independent power, supported by the principle ofius stealing novit (the judge is considered all-know-law) to take fair legal decisions. The legal decisions that have been taken must be enforced in a vacuum free from any intervention.

The series of actions by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman in the case of the presidential/vice presidential age limit were considered to have violated ethics because it benefited his nephew, Gibran Rakabuming Raka. As a result of the decision issued by his uncle, Gibran, the eldest son of President Joko Widodo, was released to the stage of the 2024 presidential election. It is very natural for the public to think that Anwar Usman needs to be given severe sanctions, dishonorably dismissed.

Unfortunately, the decision issued by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman is a final decision and is supported by the 1945 Constitution. According to the 1945 Constitution, the final nature of the Constitutional Court's decision has been confirmed in Article 24C Paragraph (1). The Constitutional Court is the first and last level judicial institution whose decisions are final so that no legal remedies are available to assess that the Constitutional Court's decision is invalid and then cancel it.

And as a state of law, the Constitutional Court's decision must be seen as a applicable decision according to the principle of res judicata (the judge's decision must be considered correct), as well as the principle of res judica pro veritate habetur which means that what the judge decides must be considered correct and must be implemented.

Canceling the Constitutional Court's decision is tantamount to showing that the rules in the 1945 Constitution are fragile and not strong. This is because the rules and laws written in the 1945 Constitution are the highest rules in this country.

Limitations From MKMK

The Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) was formed to supervise, maintain and enforce the code of ethics of every judge's behavior. This reason causes the authority of the Constitutional Court to be limited. The limit is only to check, parse and find violations of the code of ethics of the judges who serve in the constitutional court. However, the weakness of the Constitutional Court also exists, namely that it does not have the authority to dismantle interventions that are allegedly caused outside the judiciary.

The Constitutional Court has held MKMK meetings, preliminary hearings, and follow-up examination hearings, by listening to the statements of the complainant, reported judges, constitution judges, experts, and witnesses from Thursday, October 26 to Friday, November 3.

Chairman of the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), Muhammad Isnur, assessed that the breakdown of public trust in the Constitutional Court could trigger a constitutional crisis. According to him, the constitutional crisis did not only occur due to the MK's mistakes, but also President Joko Widodo (Jokowi).

"This is an important lesson for Jokowi who is considered to have taken actions that are against the constitution. So this is a mistake not only in the Constitutional Court, but also in President Joko Widodo, who has reportedly encouraged his son," said Isnur, Saturday, November 4.

He revealed that many people were disappointed with the issuance of Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Isnur said that public disappointment must be restored, including by reviewing the option of revising the controversial decision.

"We have lost confidence in the Constitutional Court. But the question is then, what is the next movement or solution? Well, this is where the importance of the Constitutional Court provides a fair decision," he added.

He emphasized that if the MKMK is unable to produce a good decision, the condition will remain the same. For this reason, MKMK is expected to dare to make a firm decision.

MKMK chairman Jimly Asshiddiqie admits this case as an unprecedented history in the world. "This needs to be known, this is an unprecedented case in the history of mankind around the world, all judges are reported to have violated the code of ethics. This is the first time," said Jimly.

Jimly said that the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the alleged violation of the code of ethics of the nine judges of the Constitutional Court would have an impact on the registration provisions for the presidential and vice presidential candidate pairs.

"Later, please look at the decisions that we (MKMK) will read, including the answers to the demands so that the decision (MKMK decision) has an effect on the Constitutional Court's decision so that it affects the registration of prospective presidential/vice-presidential candidates," Jimly told reporters, Friday, November 3.

The Rights Of The Questionnaire And MKMK Have The Same Constitutional Role

The 10th and 12th Vice President Jusuf Kalla said he was sad to see the condition of the two law enforcement agencies facing big problems. In fact, according to JK, as he is familiarly called, the two law enforcement agencies were built with extraordinary enthusiasm. Moreover, the Constitutional Court as the last door in maintaining the constitution should be able to maintain public trust.

"This institution was built with an extraordinary intention to maintain the constitution and to keep any misappropriation or corruption but is now tarnished," he said.

To maintain public confidence in law enforcement and enforcement of the constitution according to its provisions, he said, there must be strict and clear sanctions against the parties involved.

"It must be given sanctions to those who act because it will damage the country's path in the future," he advised.

Untuk mengungkapkan apakah benar ada intervensi di dalam pengambilan Putusan 90/PUU-XXI/2023, penggunaan hak anggaket DPR diguliran politisi dari PDIP, Masinton Pasaribu. Penggunaan hak angket yang dimiliki DPR diharapkan bisa mengungkap kakil pandora dari keri Putusan MK yang kontroversial.

The right of inquiry owned by the DPR is the right to investigate the implementation of a government law/policy related to important, strategic, and broad impacts on the life of the community, nation and state which is suspected to be contrary to the laws and regulations.

The MKMK and the right to inquiry owned by the DPR have the same goal, which is to unravel the mystery of the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 which is controversial. Both are expected to fight in their own way to regain the image of the lower constitutional guard.

The DPR as one of the most important parts of the country is also given the authority by the constitution. The role that will be carried out later is also part of the constitution and in accordance with the constitutional court (MK). The use of the DPR's right to inquiry is not the best solution but it is better than canceling the Constitutional Court's Decision.