CBA The Right Value Of The Constitutional Court's Decision Prohibited Political Party Cadres From Becoming Attorney Generals

Illustration of the Constitutional Court (MK). (Antanews)

JAKARTA - Executive Director of the Center of Budget Analysis (CBA) Uchok Sky Gaddafi said that the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) which prohibits the position of Attorney General is filled by the management of political parties (political parties) is correct.

According to Uchok, the Constitutional Court's decision can maintain the professional aspect of the attorney general while preventing the potential for politicization of cases.

"That's right. Even if the president is appointed, it is better if the position of the attorney general is filled with non-partisan parties, so that they can be professional and prevent politicization of cases," said Uchok when confirmed in Jakarta, Friday, March 1, was confiscated by Antara.

He compared that the performance of the Attorney General's Office, which is now led by ST Burhanuddin, with the attorney general, was filled with political party cadres. According to Uchok, the prosecutor's office is currently quite progressive in investigating corruption cases and tends not to vote against politicians.

"The previous one, right, had polemics because there were cases that seemed forced. In fact, the party's interelite conflict was brought to the realm of law," he said.

The Constitutional Court granted part of the judicial review lawsuit on the terms of appointment of the attorney general, namely Article 20 of Law (UU) Number 11 of 2021 concerning the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia at the plenary session on Thursday, February 29. The lawsuit was filed by Jovi Andrea Bachtiar, who works as a prosecutor.

The Supreme Court's decision to change the norm of the article by adding another requirement, namely that those appointed as attorneys for the general government are not administrators of political parties unless they have stopped at least five years before being appointed.

That way, the article completely reads 'To be appointed as a attorney general must meet the requirements as referred to in Article 20 letter a to letter f, including the requirements, not to be an administrator of a political party unless it has stopped as an administrator of a political party of at least 5 (five) years before being appointed as the attorney general'.

Meanwhile, Jovi, in his main petition, asked Article 20 of Law Number 11 of 2021 to also stipulate conditions so that members of political parties should not be appointed as attorneys for the general. Or if the person has been registered as a member of a political party, he must have been out for at least five years before being appointed.

The Constitutional Court could not grant all of Jovi's petitums, because the court found that there were differences in duties, functions, and authorities between the managers' of political parties and members of political parties.

According to the Constitutional Court, political party administrators have more strong attachment to their party because a board member chooses to get involved more deeply with his party; while members of political parties may only make political parties a vehicle to achieve political goals.

Therefore, the Constitutional Court views that political party administrators have the potential to have a conflict of interest when appointed as attorney general without being limited by sufficient time to cut off affiliates with the political parties that oversee them.

If it is related to the petitioner's petition, according to the court, the requirement to leave the political party for five years before being appointed as the attorney general must be applied to candidates for attorney general who were previously administrators of political parties, "said the legal consideration of the Constitutional Court as quoted from a copy of Decision Number 6/PUU-XXII/2024.