Anita Rachman – Marzuki Darusman can still remember what the House of Representatives was like before the tumultuous events of 1998 that led to the downfall of former President Suharto.

A legislator from 1978 to 1992 for the Golkar Party, which at the time did not consider itself a political party, Marzuki acknowledged that the House was once "a stabilizer institution," which meant that although institutionally it was tasked with balancing out the executive branch of government, it never actually did "We supported the government," the former attorney general said.

The House was once famously called a rubber-stamp assembly for Suharto, and its representatives were called "5D" people in reference to their token roles of datang, dengar, diam, duduk and duit (come, listen, be silent, sit and money).

In the years since, the House has gone through rigorous changes, but have 14 years of reform led to a better breed of lawmakers?

Greater power

Legislators in Suharto's day could be ostracized by their factions or even fired for being critical of the president's policies or administration, according to the book "The Political Role of DPR Indonesia in the Reform Era," published by the House Secretariat.

But after Suharto stepped down, changes swept through the House. Previously limited to proposing bills, legislators now have three main tasks of legislating, budgeting and monitoring. They can also grill ministers in oversight hearings and summon top officials through a right to make inquiries. Vice President Boediono was hauled in this way over the controversial bailout of Bank Century, which, according to a House resolution, broke the law.

Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, a political analyst from the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), said things had changed for the better at the House, in terms of legislators' freedom to express their opinion and monitor the government's performance.

However, he said it might be time to review all the powers the House now enjoys, particularly in light of controversies and criticism.

He cited several problems that the House has had with its expanded powers, including controversies over its selection of officials for important posts such as ambassadors, police chiefs and anticorruption commissioners. Political parties have also been accused of engaging in political horse-trading and bartering in exchange for backing certain candidates.

"It's true that there's been some progress," Ikrar said. "They're now free to express their opinions. But progress should also have been made in other areas, such as the quality of legislation and accountability."

No longer seen as a rubber-stamp assembly, the House has still not managed to earn public trust 14 years after the fall of Suharto. Numerous surveys rate the House and its members as among the least trustworthy government bodies. One poll, conducted by the Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI) last October, showed that only 23 percent of respondents trusted politicians, down from 44 percent in 2005.

Declining output

Saldi Isra, a legal expert at Andalas University in Padang, West Sumatra, said the House had focused far too much on its function of monitoring, at the expense of its responsibility to legislate. As an example, he said it set up a monitoring team for the Century bailout that had yet to yield no clear resolution. The House, he said, should leave such cases to law enforcement institutions.

He added that the quality of new laws had regressed during the reform era. "People will look at the quantity and quality, and both are declining," he said. "Many of the bills that are passed are challenged at the Constitutional Court."

Marzuki said that although he could not remember how many laws were passed in his time, he could "tell it was pretty quick to process each bill, because they all came from the government.

"And we only had Golkar, the Indonesian Democratic Party [PDI] and the United Development Party [PPP]. Golkar, of course, dominated the House with around 70 percent of seats, and we also got support from ABRI [the Armed Forces faction]."

Sidarto Danusubroto, a legislator with the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) who has been in the House since 1999, acknowledged a decline in legislative output. "We've passed many laws. But now, both our quality in legislating and budgeting are declining," he said.

Since early 2010, the House has passed just 47 of the 247 laws it targeted for passage by 2014, according to data from the House Legislative Body.

Ignatius Mulyono, the head of the body, said that in the previous five-year period, the House passed 192 laws. On average, it targeted around 70 bills for passage each year but always fell short.

He blamed the government, which he called a "disappointing" partner in drawing up and discussing bills. In 2010, the government completed eight of the 34 bills it was supposed to submit to the House, while the House managed to draw up 24 of the 36 bills it was supposed to draft.

Not angelic

Eva Kusuma Sundari, a PDI-P legislator, said that comparing the current House to the pre-1998 institution was unfair due to the different powers that were vested in each body.

"We can now form special committees for certain cases, and we're working on human rights abuse cases and so on, not to mention that women are now also given a bigger role in politics," she said.

The accountability issues, she said, were a consequence of the process. In the past, corruption was concentrated within Suharto's inner circle, but not anymore. "What I'm saying is, corruption is a consequence of the euphoria of learning how to legislate," she said.

She also claimed graft was a problem at other institutions, such as the Supreme Court and the tax office, "so don't hope for an angelic House of Representatives."

House Speaker Marzuki Alie said 14 years was not enough time to completely reform the legislature. "We're open to criticism, but I must say it's only a small number of House members who are embroiled in corruption scandals. So is it fair to say that we have an accountability issue?" he said.

Eva and Marzuki Alie said the solution to the House's problems rested with the parties. As long as parties did not undertake serious reforms, including to ensure the quality of their members, the House would retain its reputation, they said.

Fourteen years ago this week, Indonesia was besieged by riots that led to the fall of President Suharto. In this special five-day series, we take a look at the changes Indonesia has seen since then, and whether they were worth the price.