Camelia Pasandaran – Analysts on Tuesday attacked the House of Representatives for its poor attendance record, during a judicial review hearing in the Constitutional Court.

The court is hearing a case filed by four applicants – a lawyer, a teacher, a government official and an employee from a private firm – who want the Supreme Court Law overturned because fewer than 100 of the 550 elected representatives from the House were present for the vote.

Syamsuddin Haris, a political expert from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), testified that given the propensity of members of the House to turn up to plenary sessions simply to sign the attendance register, it was better not to hold the sessions in the first place.

"As they all live in houses close to one another, they should just sign the attendance form at home instead of taking the effort of coming to the House," he said sarcastically. "It's no use having a House building or even conducting elections if that's the way they're going to act."

The judicial review was filed with the Constitutional Court because of the poor attendance of lawmakers during deliberations over the controversial Supreme Court bill last year. At least half of the House members are needed to form a quorum to endorse bills.

When the House plenary meeting, led by Agung Laksono, endorsed the bill in December 2008, it is alleged there were no more than 96 members in attendance despite 283 having supposedly signed the register.

Syamsuddin said that representation in the House should only come in two forms, that of ideas and that of physical presence. "We should not acknowledge mere administrative representation, such as the signing the attendance form," he said.

Abdul Chaer, a language expert from the Jakarta State University (UNJ), said that the word "attendance" represented actual physical attendance.

"There is a common principle regarding attendance, and it means real physical attendance," Abdul said. "Signatures cannot represent attendance, because it cannot contribute to debate in the plenary sessions of the House. The physical body can only contribute during the endorsement of a bill."

Previously, Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, a legislator from the National Awakening Party (PKB), had told the court that abuse of the attendance register was a "big problem."

"If we had to have half the members attending the session [until the end], we would never be able to pass a bill," she said. "Besides, the regulation does not require physical attendance. If half of the members sign the attendance list, it is enough."

Government officials also defended the House members, saying that if physical attendance was a requirement, the House would have difficulties passing any bills.

Qomaruddin, the legal director at the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, said that there was a convention in the House regulations that stated attendance only be proven with signatures.

However, Syamsuddin said that the convention was wrong and should therefore be revised. "If we can amend the Constitution, then it means we can also change the convention – especially as it is wrong," he said.

"It doesn't matter if the House can only produce a limited number of laws," Syamsuddin added. "The House target for passing bills during its five-year term is too ambitious, so as they try to reach the target in a short time, they instead come up with bad legislation."

The Constitutional Court will announce its decision within the next two week.