The pros and cons of returning to the 1945 Constitution are still ongoing Jakarta, Indonesia News Present : According to Prof Kaelan from UG...
 |
| The pros and cons of returning to the 1945 Constitution are still ongoing |
Jakarta, Indonesia News Present : According to Prof Kaelan from UGM, after the 1945 Constitution was amended four times (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002), around 90% of the articles written by the great founding fathers were changed. This is not an amendment. But renew alias replace, said Kaelan.
In turn, the practice of replacing the intended constitution changed the face of the constitution to become liberal, individualistic and capitalistic. The title was changed to the 1945 NRI Constitution. There was an additional 'NRI' in the middle. Some call it the '2002 Constitution' because it came into force on 10 August 2002. In fact, there are those who term it a fake 1945 Constitution.
Why does the '2002 Constitution' still use the term UUD 1945 with the addition of three letters: N-R-I in between (the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia)? This reads, that whoever the regime is based on the '2002 Constitution', wants to continue to be supported by the TNI-Polri. These two armed institutions, as well as glue the nation. Because, in the 'Soldier's Oath' of the TNI and the 'Tri Brata' of the Police, the clause states: ".. allegiance to Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution ..".
Maybe this is the main reason why the '2002 Constitution' is still called the 1945 Constitution with the addition of three letters (NRI) in between. Imagine if the TNI-Polri were disloyal, alias mbalelo, to the ruling regime because of the UUD which was not in accordance with the pronunciation of the Soldiers' Oath and Tri Brata?
And it's really risky, the new Constitution (UUD NRI 1945) was created by reformists and ridden by foreign elements (via the National Democratic Institute or NDI), so that until now it doesn't have a legal umbrella. There is no single underlying rule like the MPR Decree/Tap, for example. Or Laws, Perppu, Presidential Decree and others. Nothing, aka nothing at all. Actually there is a TAP draft, but it is not numbered, aka the number column is left blank.
 |
| Four amendments changed the meaning of the 1945 Constitution |
Why? It is undeniable that due to the shift in the position of the MPR from the highest institution to a higher institution, the MPR no longer has the authority to issue regeling TAPs. Can issue a TAP, but the nature of the determination is merely a ceremonial institutional alias.
His rhetoric, "Is this government based on the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia legally 'defective'?" Not so the question. And neither is letterlijk alias black and white the answer. Perhaps, a brief logical narrative like this. De jure, still using the 1945 Constitution before the amendment (original text). But de facto, using the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (post-amendment) the TAP MPR is not numbered.
Why is that? Past. During the 3rd amendment in 2001, the highest state institution, namely the MPR, the incarnation (sovereignty) of the people --- the top of the constitutional pyramid --- was downgraded to become a higher state institution at the level of DPR, BPK, MA, DPD and others. There was a significant shift in the MPR's position.
Thus, the current constitution no longer has a 'top of the pyramid'. Sovereignty of the people 'usurped' in the courtroom by the reformists. Of course, the MPR no longer has the authority to issue TAP MPR --- which is regulatory in nature --- whose hierarchy is above the law. This fact is currently happening, but most constitutional law experts in this republic are silent. Somehow.
Another thing that is no less urgent is that there is no longer a GBHN which is the government's work reference in carrying out development (policy); and the President is no longer the Mandatarist of the MPR. So, apart from the President tending to carry out his own politics (not the GBHN politics), if there is a violation of the constitution by the President then the MPR cannot be dismissed directly.
It can indeed be dismissed by the MPR on the recommendation of the DPR (article 7A); submitted by the DPR to the MPR only if it has submitted a request to the MK or the MK to examine (article 7B). Relatively long and convoluted when compared to before.
The problem is different when one of the institutions, be it the DPR, MPR or MK, is in the 'hands' of the President. Or, the three actually conspired.
Compare when the MPR was the top of the pyramid. Presidents like Bung Karno, Pak Habibie, Gus Dur --- when he violated the constitution --- were removed through the Special Session (SI). However, the SI mechanism has now been lost or removed in amendments. Isn't the MPR now no longer the top of the political pyramid, aka no longer the highest state institution?
If there are pros and cons of the President's policies related to the constitution, for example, the maximum is to be sued at the Constitutional Court (MK), or at least to be demonstrated by residents on the streets, or simply to criticize intellectuals and politicians who shout at each other in public spaces. Nothing more. This is what is currently taking place in this beloved republic.
Broadly speaking, there are five factions in the public regarding the constitutional conflict, including: First, the camp that wants to perpetuate the '2002 Constitution' or the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This group is connoisseurs of amendments, because with the new constitution they feel comfortable and benefited (comfort). zone);
Second, the faction that wants to return to the 1945 Constitution. These are some of the nation's children who are worried about the condition of the nation and the fate of future generations as a result of the current Constitution being liberal, individualistic and capitalistic;
Third, the hypocrite group. This is the 'karaoke'. Right left OK. One foot is in the second camp, the other foot supports the preservation of the '2002 Constitution' under various pretexts. Mbulet and confusing;
 |
| Zulkifli S. Ekomei |
Fourth, hooray group. These people are between the two sides. On the other hand, he doesn't understand what's really going on; on the other hand, he is just a safety player; Fifth, lay people. They don't know anything about the nation's upstream issues related to the constitution.
At the end of this little reflection, two intriguing rhetoric emerged: In which position or camp do I now belong? Or, in fact, where is Indonesia going? An afterthought in early 2023
By: Zulkifli S Ekomei, constitution activist
Photo : Special
%20bersama%20Pimpinan%20WCC%20Group.jpg)
