In its distinguished mandate, the Constitutional Court is granted a privilege that eludes the legislative and executive branches of power in the country's governance system. While the latter two control each other under a checks-and-balances mechanism, the Constitutional Court works without being subject to external oversight but according to the integrity of its individual justices.
The court's integrity has been at a low ebb ever since its former chief justice Akil Mochtar was arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which caught him red-handed accepting bribes in November last year. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono issued a government regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) to restore public confidence in the court, which eventually won the House of Representatives' endorsement – albeit not unanimously.
Therefore, the court's decision to hear a judicial review motion filed against the Perppu raised many eyebrows, not only because of the blatant conflict of interest the court would deal with, but also due to public skepticism about the court's commitment to good governance. Thursday's verdict, which went in favor of the petitioners, proved our doubts were right.
No matter how valid the legal considerations of the verdict were, the Constitutional Court would have risked being perceived by many as antireform, despite the fact that it was a product of reforms. How can we expect the court to show commitment to reform if it reinstates a provision that opens the door wide for politicians?
The Perppu mandated the establishment of a permanent ethics body to oversee the court and an independent selection panel and also barred candidates with recent links to political parties from becoming a justice in the court.
The case of Akil revealed that the political bond was unbroken, even though an elected Constitutional Court justice had to quit politics. The ongoing investigation has led the KPK to Akil's former colleagues in the Golkar Party, most prominently Banten Governor Ratu Atut Chosiyah and her brother Tubagus Chaeri Wardana, also known as Wawan. Of course, money primarily drove the acts of corruption in the case involving Akil, but no one could challenge the effect of the political connection.
Worse, with the court wielding the power to hear election disputes, everyone has a reason to fear biased rulings in dispute settlements involving those contesting the upcoming elections, merely because of the loss of public confidence.
Regardless of the praiseworthy verdicts the court has generated, including the recent ones that threw a multi-interpreted article of unpleasant conduct out of the Criminal Code and revoked the House's power to select Supreme Court justice candidates, the Constitutional Court is not immune to corruption and political interference.
Given that the Constitutional Court's ruling is final and binding, nobody can challenge the controversial verdict of the Perppu. The government and the House may move to amend the existing law on the Constitutional Court anyway, but this will not save the new law from attempted judicial reviews.