The Constitutional Court’s Decision Extends the Term of Office of KPK Leaders Off Track

2023-05-28 03:39:32

loading…

The Constitutional Court’s decision to extend the term of office of the KPK leadership from four to five years is deemed out of authority. Photo/SINDOnews

JAKARTA – Equivalent Institute considered that the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) regarding the term of office of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) leadership had gone astray. This is because the term of office for officials of state institutions such as the Corruption Eradication Commission is the authority of legislators.

“The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding this term of office will set the worst constitutional precedent in Indonesian constitutional life,” said Chairman of the Governing Body of the Setara Institute Ismail Hasani in a written statement quoted on Sunday (28/5/2023).

According to Ismail, what was conveyed by MK spokesman Fajar Laksono that the decision is binding and applies to the current KPK leadership is an interpretation that can be ignored. Because even though the Constitutional Court’s decision is final and binding and applies when pronounced, the object of judicial review in the Constitutional Court is an abstract norm.

“It is not intended to solve concrete cases as requested by Nurul Gufron. Moreover, this is a judgment in its nature non-self executingwhich does not necessarily apply to extending the term of office of the current KPK leadership,” he said.

More than that, Ismail expressed his concern for MK. Seeing that the decision regarding the term of office of the KPK leadership was passed through a significant dissenting opinion, namely five to four judges, Ismail believes there is a split of views within the Constitutional Court.

”Even if dissenting or concurring opinion a normal thing, but the trend of repeated divisions illustrates that the body of the Constitutional Court is increasingly fragile, vulnerable and experiencing the erosion of the statesmanship of judges and institutional integrity,” said the lecturer in Constitutional Law at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

Ismail assessed that the way decisions were made that were not unanimous in the constitutional guardianship institution was really worrying. “This split has built a perception that the political will of the Constitutional Court is far more dominant as a variable in decision-making than the intention to uphold constitutional justice,” said Ismail.

(muh)