Will MKMK's Decision Become An Affix Right Stimulus?

Illustration Of Images By Ilham Andri Winarko VOI

JAKARTA The decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the age limit of presidential candidates (candidates) and vice presidents (cawapres) has a long tail. In addition to reports on alleged ethical violations that were followed up by the formation of the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court (MKMK), a lawsuit for the Constitutional Court to review the decision also emerged.

If academics such as Denny Indrayana and Zainal Arifin Mochtar choose to file a lawsuit for the Constitutional Court to review the decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, another route will surface in parliament. Politician from the PDI-P faction, Masinton Pasaribu proposed the use of the DPR's Questionnaire Right to find out whether there were irregularities committed by the government in the process of issuing the Constitutional Court's decision.

Pros and cons immediately appeared after the proposal to use the DPR's Right to Questionnaires in responding to the issuance of the Constitutional Court's Decision. Based on Article 79 paragraph (3) of the Law on the MPR, DPR, DPRD and DPD (MD3), the Right of Questionnaires is the right of the DPR to investigate the implementation of laws or government policies that are suspected of contradicting statutory regulations.

Based on the above understanding, many consider the proposal to use the DPR's Letter Rights only to make up because the Constitutional Court, which incidentally entered the judiciary realm, is considered not to be the object of the DPR's Questionnaire Right. However, Masinton is still adamant with the proposal. According to him, the Constitutional Court can become the object of the Right to Question because it is the executor of the law.

"All state institutions that implement the law can become objects of inquiry. Right? We are not included in the judicial authority," explained Masinton, Monday, November 6.

He considered that tragedy and scandal had occurred at the Constitutional Court. In fact, Masinton considers that there has been a legal smuggling in the Constitutional Court. This can be seen by the presence of judges at the Constitutional Court and constitutional law experts who question Decision No. 90 of 2023.

Therefore, he invited other DPR members to support the use of the Right of Questionnaires to address serious problems in the Constitutional Court. "There is a serious problem in our Constitutional Court. So the DPR must respond by conducting an investigation through the Right of Questionnaire. This is to maintain the dignity of our constitution," added Masinton.

The Constitutional Court Is Not The Object Of The Right Of The Questionnaire

A different opinion was conveyed by a politician from the Gerindra faction, Habiburokhman, who considered Masinton's proposal for the Right to Question as ridiculous. He emphasized that the Constitutional Court was not included in the object of the Right to Assignment from the DPR.

"This is too degrading for our common sense as a citizen who understands the law, isn't it? For example, if you were playing football, you lost, you were appealed to the court, how come that's so stupid," he said.

The Deputy Chairman of Commission III of the DPR said that the Right of Angkat was proposed as an effort to investigate government policies. In the context, the right of inquiry is the relationship between the DPR as a supervisor and the government as the supervised party. "The government, the emphasis is on that," continued Habiburokhman.

Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives for the 2014-2019 period, Fahri Hamzah, said that narrowly the Constitutional Court did not become the object of the Right to Question if it was based on Article 79 of the MD3 Law. However, if it is interpreted widely, then it is legal if there are parties who think that the Constitutional Court is still the object of the Right of Question.

What is the view of constitutional law experts? A constitutional law expert from Andalas University, Feri Amsari, stated that the DPR cannot apply for the right of inquiry to the Constitutional Court which is in the scope of judicial power. This is because the position of the Constitutional Court as a judicial institution is upheld by the 1945 Constitution, especially article 24 of the 1945 Constitution which states that judicial power is an independent power.

"Of course, the right of inquiry is the right of members of the DPR to submit it. I just see, it is necessary to accuracy the object of the Right to Question. If the object is the Constitutional Court's decision or the Constitutional Court's institution, of course it can't. The power of justice is based on Article 24 of the Constitution, which is an independent power. It cannot be intervened by the right of inquiry, "explained Feri.

The Object Of Rights To An Angkat Is Directed To The President

However, he still sees a gap in applying for the Right of Questionnaire regarding the Constitutional Court Decision No. 90 of 2023. Feri revealed that if the DPR intends to apply for the Right of Questionnaire, then the object is not the Constitutional Court, but the president. The reason is, the president has the potential to have a conflict of interest with the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman, who benefits his biological son in the decision.

"So, the object should be a violation of the law by the president. Because the president has the potential to intervene through conflicts of interest with the chairman of the Constitutional Court for the benefit of his biological child. Now that makes sense. Because the president must not intervene in the power and independence of justice," explained Feri.

A electoral law expert from the University of Indonesia, Titi Anggraini, assessed that the DPR could propose the Right to Question the Constitutional Court. However, the focus of the Right to Question is on the process of investigating the violation of the law carried out to intervene in the intervention of the Constitutional Court judge.

"Because the DPR does have the right of inquiry but focuses on violating the law in order to take actions that are not in line with the rules of the game," said Titi.

If you want to investigate, are there efforts made by other state organs to influence the independence of judicial power, then it is possible. But the context of judicial power is independent and independent power. He is not subject to other powers. Of course the judges are not immune to the legal process if he commits a crime," continued Titi.

According to him, it would be better if the DPR respects the authority of the MKMK which is currently processing reports of alleged ethical violations at the Constitutional Court. "When it comes to the context of the Constitutional Court, I think we hope that the process at the MKMK can run well and make things clear," said Titi.

Another opinion was expressed by the Chief Justice of the MKMK, Jimly Asshiddiqie, who supports DPR members using the Right of Questionnaire on the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the terms of the age of nomination of the president and vice president. He reasoned, with the use of the right of inquiry, the DPR could maximize one of its functions, namely supervising a judicial institution.

"The right to inquiry is good, I think so that the DPR also functions to carry out its supervisory function," said Jimly, last Wednesday, November 1.

Jimly himself together with two members of the Constitutional Court, Bintan R Saragih and Wahiduddin Adams will issue a decision regarding the examination of alleged ethical violations committed by constitutional judges, especially the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman in the process of issuing the Constitutional Court Decision No. 90 of 2023, on Tuesday 7 November.

Decides MKMK To Be An Entrance To The Right Of Administrative Rights, What if MKMK decides Anwar Usman violates ethics, such as engaging in nepotism practices and influencing other constitutional judges when issuing the Constitutional Court Decision No. 90 of 2023? Can it smooth the use of the DPR's Questionnaire Rights?

Politician from the PPP faction, Syaifullah Tamliha, assessed that the Constitutional Court's decision could be the entrance to the DPR's Questionnaire Rights. Moreover, if in its decision, the MKMK finds meetings that are regulated from the start, the president's scenario will lead to the president.

He added that the basis for submitting the Right to Questionnaire can be done if a violation of the code of ethics is found against Anwar Usman in deciding case Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Anwar's position became controversial because he was the uncle of Gibran Rakabuming Raka who was President Jokowi's eldest son.

"Yes, it means that there is a moral hazard to include the president's son as a vice presidential candidate, that could be the basis for the DPR's issuance of the right of inquiry," said Tamliha, Monday, November 6.

Although reluctant to make assumptions, he admitted that the end of the use of the DPR's Angkat Rights was the impeachment of the president. Although, achieving this certainly takes a long time.

"Yes, the impeachment is through the Right of Angkat, it will take approximately six months. His position in the DPR first, after being in the DPR, he was brought to the MPR," said Tamliha.

Secretary of the DPR's PPP faction, Achmad Baidowi added, the proposal for the right to inquiry is currently being studied by the factions in the DPR, starting from the reasons for the decision to its relation to the government. Why did the Constitutional Court's decision come like that? What is the relationship with the government? And so on, "he added.

Indostrategic executive director Ahmad Khoirul Umam said that if the right of inquiry would be rolled out, the PDI-P faction could not propose it itself. He saw that if he looked at the current political map, then at least FPDIP would be with FPPP in proposing the Right of Question.

However, it is possible that if FPDIP is able to build communication with the factions who are members of the Change Coalition, in this case the NasDem Party, FPKS and FPKB factions, the proposed right of inquiry will be difficult to contain.

"If the object has led to the president, and the PDIP faction is able to cooperate with the factions in the Change Coalition, it will be difficult to hold the right of inquiry in the DPR," said Umam.

It is interesting to wait, whether the Constitutional Court's Decision will be a stimulus for the smoothness of the DPR's Questionnaire Rights.