Pandaya, Jakarta – The surprise passage of a bill amending the Law on the Constitutional Court after secretive deliberations on Tuesday smacks of collusion between political parties and the government to control the court.

The House of Representatives passed the bill with little – if there was any at all – public consultation, which is vital to making legislation as perfect as possible to ensure its acceptability. The media, already preoccupied by numerous high-profile corruption cases, was practically caught off guard. Little was known about the deliberations of the crucial bill.

As widely feared, the amendment is nothing but a weakening of the much-celebrated court, which was formed in 2003 as part of the sweeping reform following the fall of the authoritarian New Order regime under Soeharto in May 1998.

Since its outset, it has occasionally been at odds with politicians – especially when it came to resolving electoral disputes at both the local and national levels, as well as reviewing disputed laws in which political parties have huge interests.

The court has earned its reputation as a role model for transparent, modern, corruption-free, cheap and efficient proceedings.

The smoldering conflict with politicians comes mainly from the court's main authorities: reviewing disputed laws, banning political parties, handling general election disputes and giving opinions about the House's allegations that the President or Vice President have committed serious constitutional violations.

So, in the revised law, the House and the government (the legislative and executive powers) have practically amputated the court's power in the three key areas.

First, on constitutional reviews, the revised law will limit the court's authority to examine and rule on the particular article or articles as petitioners request, known as the ultra petita principle. This provision will no longer allow the court to overhaul or entirely drop a law it deems in conflict with the 1945 Constitution.

The House has often accused the Constitutional Court of robbing its law-making authority by introducing new rules, which the public understands is necessary to prevent a legal mess that can trigger political unrest until the legislative body completes the revision of the flawed law.

Constitutional expert Jimly Asshiddiqie says ultra petita should only apply in civil cases, and the court should retain its power to overhaul or cancel a law it deems in serious conflict with the 1945 Constitution.

Secondly, the revised law takes away the Constitutional Court's authority to settle regional electoral conflicts and give it to a regional court to be established to exclusively handle local electoral disputes in every regency and municipality. The court will be put under the supervision of the local high court.

In the past, regional conflicts would be settled in the local high court, but the government switched the authority to the Constitutional Court in 2008, following complaints that local judges could not stand threats from the conflicting parties.

"Judges felt insecure, and their independence was at stake. That was why the Supreme Court asked us [the House] to transfer the authority to the Constitutional Court," senior lawmaker Gayus Lumbuun said.

At the Constitutional Court, regional electoral conflicts have been settled efficiently and fairly. But, in a change of heart, lawmakers sought to relinquish the power on the grounds that referring the dispute to the local high court was cheaper due to proximity.

The lower courts' capacity to resolve electoral conflicts remains questionable, as district courts are short for truly qualified judges to deal with the aggressive judicial mafia. Besides, they are already overwhelmed by their caseloads.

Failure to deliver fast and fair court settlements would have unimaginable consequences. In the past, regional election disputes quickly triggered violence between rival camps.

Thirdly, the House and the government cannot hide their intention to control Constitutional Court judges, as obvious in the composition of its council of ethics, where the Law and Human Rights Ministry and the House will be among the five members.

The three other members will represent the Supreme Court, Judicial Commission and the Constitutional Court.

The inclusion of people from outside the organization in such a vital department as the ethics council is unusual in Indonesian politics. One may wonder how lawmakers would react to a proposal to include a Constitutional Court judge on the House's ethics council.

There is every reason to worry about the lame duck court's independence later when politicians and government bureaucrats, staggering with their vested interests, attend a court ethics hearing.

Politics would be at play in constitutional decision making, and good governance would remain elusive. We may also wonder out loud who will review the new Constitutional Court Law in case citizens have any objections.