Markus Junianto Sihaloho – Last week's arrest of Akil Mochtar, the chief justice of the Constitutional Court, for bribery allegations has prompted calls to limit the court's authority, including proposals to disband the institution.

"The way I see it the most important thing is to revoke the Constitutional Court's authority to handle regional election disputes," Pramono Anung, a deputy speaker of the House of Representatives, said in Jakarta on Tuesday.

Pramono said the law authorizing the Constitutional Court to handle regional election disputes would only drive more judges into taking bribes from poll candidates seeking favorable rulings.

The sentiment was echoed by Fahri Hamzah, a member of House Commission III, overseeing legal affairs. Fahri said the Constitutional Court's authority should be limited to handling disputes related to the presidential election and national legislative election, and reviews of laws deemed unconstitutional.

Pramono said that despite the recent scandal involving Akil, calls to disband the Constitutional Court were unnecessary and excessive.

"There is no need to disband the Constitutional Court, but we can strip its authority with regard to politically motivated cases," he said. "If we do that, we will be able to reveal who else is involved besides Akil, because in corruption cases it is very rare that people act alone."

Pramono also extended his support to stripping the court of its authority to settle regional election disputes, saying they were all heavily steeped in politics.

"Currently, the Constitutional Court has demigod powers, so it would be better to return the authority of handling regional election disputes to the Supreme Court," he said.

Unlimited authority

Sidarto Danusubroto, the speaker of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), said the Constitutional Court had been granted excessively powerful authority.

The institution, he said, is authorized to conduct judicial reviews for every law passed by the House, yet fell outside the scope of any external monitoring. "We should have known that someone [from the court] would slip at any moment," Sidarto said on Monday.

He said the MPR had previously proposed limiting the Constitutional Court's powers by scaling back its authority to conduct judicial reviews. "We can't let all the final decisions regarding judicial reviews be decided by the Constitutional Court," he said.

Sidarto said the authority to conduct the judicial review should be shared with the House, which drafts and passes all national legislation. "So there should be a legislative review before a judicial review can be conducted," he said.

Sidarto also said that the Constitutional Court's power to handle regional election disputes had not always been used positive. He said there were many losing candidates using various loopholes to report their political opponents to the court to challenge their victory. "We know sometimes they challenge their opponents' victory just so they can have bargaining power," he said.

Yusril Ihza Mahendra, a former justice minister and state administrative law expert, said a regulation in lieu of law, or perppu, currently being drafted by the government to propose that the authority to settle regional election disputes be returned to the Supreme Court could be used in an effort to save the Constitutional Court's tainted reputation.

Yusril said regional election disputes wasted a lot resources, time and money for the Constitutional Court, and at the same time opened opportunities for the justices to engage in bribery and corruption.

"Akil's case should serve as an example," he said. Akil was arrested last Wednesday by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) for suspected bribery. When the KPK searched his offices in the Constitutional Court, they found two methamphetamine pills and four marijuana joints.

The National Narcotics Agency (BNN) said on Tuesday that it was not certain whether the drugs belonged to Akil.

Akil stands accused of taking bribes in connection with at least two regional election disputes being heard at the court. The elections in question are the Sept. 4 poll for district head in Central Kalimantan's Gunung Mas district, and the Aug. 31 ballot for district head in Lebak, Banten.

Yusril said the new regulation should clearly mention that regional election disputes should be tried by provincial high courts and the Supreme Court in an open trial to enable the public to monitor the development of the case.

Yusril said Akil's arrest should motivate President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to accelerate the issuance of the new regulation to restore public trust in the Constitutional Court.

Recommendations

In the future, Yusril said, if anyone challenged the regulation, the Constitutional Court should not be allowed to handle the judicial review.

Former vice president Jusuf Kalla also called for a limitation on the Constitutional Court's powers by authorizing high courts to hear regional election disputes.

"The Constitutional Court's power is too much," he said. "Handling regional election disputes is unnecessary for them."

Kalla said the court should be focusing on managing law judicial reviews. He said regional election disputes would only distract the court because there were more than 500 elections in Indonesia every five years, and in more than 90 percent of them the losing candidates always challenged their opponents' victory to the Constitutional Court.

"Every year they have to settle at least 100 disputes, so how are they going to handle judicial reviews? They will work recklessly, and in the end the practice will only create case brokers," he said.

Akil's case is made more controversial because the Constitutional Court decided in 2006 to remove the power of the Judicial Commission, which monitors the nation's courts, to investigate its judges.

Judicial Commission spokesman Asep Rahmat Fajar told the Jakarta Globe that any decision made before Akil was arrested could not be questioned because the Constitutional Court's decisions were final and binding.

Asep admitted that there was no guarantee that with the Judicial Commission's supervision such an incident would not happen again. However, he said, with the commission's supervision, it would be less likely to happen again.

Prior to his arrest, Akil had criticized the Judicial Commission's request to be granted the authority to monitor the constitutional justices. Akil said the constitutional justices' performance was excellent and therefore monitoring by the Judicial Commission was unnecessary.

"It is a fact that even though our judges are not being monitored by the Judicial Commission, their performance is still excellent. The institution is still very much trusted by the public, so why bother monitoring the constitutional judges? Better spend the energy monitoring other judges so they won't slip," Akil told Kompas.com.