Markus Junianto Sihaloho – The Constitutional Court on Thursday overturned President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's October 2013 regulation in lieu of a law, or Perppu, which was directed toward the court itself – flying in the face of the President's measures to reign the court in after public confidence in the body was shaken by the jarring detention of former Chief Justice Akil Mochtar on graft charges.

The regulation, which increased oversight and put in place steeper requirements for joining the Court, was "against the 1945 Constitution and is not legally binding," Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva said at the ruling. The decision was the result of a request for judicial review filed by a group of lawyers and legal experts.

Under Indonesian law, a Perppu, which has the same legal standing as a law passed by the House of Representatives, may be issued in response to an emergency in order to justify bypassing the normal legislative process. Any Indonesian citizen may, however, submit any regulation to the Constitution Court for review and the court is free to revoke it or issue clarifications.

The regulation, which was approved by the House of Representatives in December 2013 – despite opposition from the Great Indonesia Movement Party (Gerindra), the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), the People's Conscience Party (Hanura) and the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) – stipulated that a judicial candidate must not have been a member of a political party for at least seven years before becoming a justice, called for the creation of a panel to vet Constitutional Court candidates, established a permanent body tasked with monitoring judicial conduct and required that all future Constitutional Court candidates to have earned doctorates.

Akil, who stands accused of accepting bribes in connection to two regional election disputes, joined the court in 2009 – the same year he stepped down from his position as a Golkar party lawmaker, which he had held for a decade.

In striking down the measure, the court argued that the selection process for Constitutional Court justices has been stipulated by the Constitution and therefore should not be modified.

The Court also argued that the regulation had reduced the authority Supreme Court, the House of Representatives and the President – who have the authority to select justices – by diluting that authority with an additional panel of experts.

The court argued that the stipulation mandating a seven-year gap before a politician was eligible to join the court violated the constitutional rights of Indonesian citizens and would only serve to further stigmatize public servants. The court also ruled that a Perppu was only justified in an emergency and that the Akil Mochtar scandal had not constituted an emergency.

PDI-P lawmaker Eva Kusuma Sundari said that she and her party supported the court's decision, but she said that justices needed to be monitored further nonetheless.

Irman Putra Sidin, a Constitution expert at Hasanudin Univeristy in Makassar, South Sulawesi, also praised the ruling, saying that it indicated an independent and impartial court, free from political pressure.

"All citizens can have the guarantee that political pressure, even massive public pressure, will not be able to influence the Constitutional Court," he said. He called the Perppu a threat to democracy, inherited from the more absolute power Indonesian leaders held in the past.

Coordinating minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Djoko Suyanto, on the other hand, said that the ruling had undermined the government's efforts to restore dignity to the court. "The law was meant to fix the court, but it has been annulled by the court," he said at a press conference.

Djoko said that the government had painstakingly drafted the Perppu with the aid of law experts and former Constitutional Court justices. He said that the government would not try to change the decision, but only because there was no legal avenue to do so – such rulings are absolute and binding under Indonesian law.

Refly Harun, a Constitution expert at the Constitutional & Electoral Reform Center in Jakarta, said that the decision would increase the likelihood that future justices would join the court with a political background, which he said was a "great threat." "The judges should be God's representatives in this world, not representing political power," he said.