M. Taufiqurrahman, Jakarta – The Constitutional Court is delivering controversial and questionable verdicts that are only serving to sow further confusion in the country's legal system, two legal experts say.
National Law Commission chairman J.E. Sahetapy and a constitutional law expert from Bandung's Padjajaran University, Sri Soemantri, said judges at the Constitutional Court were living in "isolation" and did not take the public mood into account when making verdicts.
"Those constitutional judges should have been prudent when issuing their verdicts and should not have made decisions that only give rise to further legal ramifications," Sahetapy told The Jakarta Post over the weekend.
A recent verdict issued by the court this year stripped the Judicial Commission of its oversight powers over Supreme Court and Constitutional Court judges because of a legal technicality.
The court ruled that the 2004 Judicial Commission Law setting up the body was flawed – and therefore unconstitutional – because it did not make a distinction between the "justices" of the Supreme Court and the "judges" of other courts.
However, neither does the nation's Constitution, which simply states that all conditions for "the appointment and dismissal of a judge shall be laid down by the law".
That verdict is only the latest in a series of controversial decisions handed down by the court, which observers believe is dealing a blow to government attempts to reform the notoriously corrupt judiciary.
Last month, the court issued a ruling that made it more difficult for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to round up graft suspects. It ruled that suspects in corruption cases could only be brought to court if there was evidence they were in violation of "formal regulations".
Sahetapy warned the country was in danger of "constitutional tyranny" from the court because as the sole institution with the right to interpret the Constitution, it could easily abuse such authority.
"There is no institution in the country that can successfully challenge their (judges') authority as any efforts to review Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court will easily be rejected by (the court)," Sahetapy said.
To create a better decision-making mechanism at the court, Soemantri suggested that there should an amendment to the law on the court to increase the number of judges.
"With the current arrangement of nine members, including a chairman, it is difficult to expect a strong dissenting opinion, but with a membership of 15, for instance, a more healthy debate could take place and the verdict could be less controversial," Soemantri told the Post.
Both Soemantri and Sahetapy were involved in the deliberations of the constitutional court law.
The court, however, was not the only institution to blame for some of the controversial rulings, the two experts agreed.
"The House of Representatives should share the blame for producing poor quality laws that can easily become the subjects of judicial reviews filed by those affected by the laws," Soemantri said.