•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a revision of the 2003 Constitutional Court Law that will significantly curtail the bench’s authority, including a restriction on issuing verdicts beyond what has been requested of it.

Achmad Dimyati Natakusumah, deputy chairman of the House Legislation Body, told a plenary session that the Constitutional Court was not a lawmaking body and therefore should only hand down rulings on articles it had been asked to review.

The court should also limit its verdicts to declaring whether laws or articles ran counter to the Constitution, he added, and refrain from recommending alternative legislation.

“The court can throw out an entire law or annul certain articles but not clarify the regulation in question,” he said.

Achmad cited a Constitutional Court verdict on Monday that clarified an article in the Law on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), giving the chairman of the body three more years at the helm instead of the one year as afforded by law.

Also decided by the House, justices should now at least have a master’s degree in law and be between 47 and 65 of age when recruited, while the retirement age would be set at 70 years.

The chairman and deputy chairman positions at the court would have terms of two and a half years, with a single extension possible.

The revision would also limit the court’s authority to review electoral cases, Achmad said. Specialized courts would be set up to deal with poll disputes as outlined in an upcoming revision of the Law on Regional Elections.

He said the Honor Council, the Constitutional Court’s monitoring body, should include representatives from the Supreme Court, Judicial Commission, House of Representatives and the central government.

“This composition is meant to provide balance, professionalism and fairness,” Justice and Human Rights Minister Patrialis Akbar said of the council’s membership.

The minister said none of the revisions in the law were aimed at weakening the court, but were instead meant to strengthen it.

“Every revision was based on our experience,” he said. “We are not limiting it, but restoring the court’s true authority.”

Even though the people had the right to file judicial reviews against the revisions, “we hope that the court will not have to judge itself,” Patrialis said.

However, A. Irman Putrasidin, a constitutional law expert, said he believed many people would be disadvantaged by the changes and urged the public to file challenges. “And the Constitution allows the Constitutional Court to review any law, including about itself.”

Laode Syarif, from the government reform advisory body, Kemitraan, meanwhile, said even the drafting process for the revisions had been flawed.

“There wasn’t enough public consultation, it was passed in a hurry and we never saw its academic draft,” he said, calling on the public to pressure the government to cancel the changes.

Former Justice Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra backed the revisions, particularly those that limited the court’s scope to only handle requests.

“Principally, judges are not allowed to pass rulings that are not outside, or more than, what is requested,” he said.

He added that when the initial law was drafted, the Constitutional Court could only endorse vote tallies and not rule on electoral disputes. “But instead, it issued a ruling for an election to be re-held, even disqualifying candidates,” Yusril said.