A
suitable interpellation
Zainal Arifin Mochtar ; A lecturer at the Law School at Gadjah Mada
University in Yogyakarta; Chair of the PuKAT Korupsi anti-graft group
|
JAKARTA
POST, 09 Desember 2014
Certain members of the House of Representatives (DPR), all of whom are
from the opposition Red-and-White Coalition, have filed an interpellation
motion to question the policy of raising fuel prices.
This is not an unorthodox measure considering fuel is a key commodity,
especially after the fuel-price rise.
Moreover, the Red-and-White Coalition positions itself as the
government’s opposition.
Yet as Indonesia practices a presidential government system, would
interpellation be suitable? Let’s look at the implication of this right to
raise opinion toward impeachment.
Interpellation is the right of DPR members to request information from
the government concerning imperative and strategic governmental policies
widely affecting the lives of the people.
That is how Article 20A of the 1945 Constitution grants the right to
House members, which is regulated further under the provisions in the
Legislative Institution Law No. 17/2014, known as the MD3 Law. Interpellation
provides the right for DPR members to compel the government to elucidate an
undertaken policy.
Interestingly, interpellation is closer to the parliamentary system,
where it is an instrument used by parliament to control policies run by the
primus inter pares and his or her cabinet. However, interpellation is also
found in countries with a presidential system.
Scott Mainwaring (1994) was reluctant to define interpellation as a
trait distinguishing the parliamentary from the presidential system.
Indeed many presidential countries use interpellation as part of the
checks and balances between the government and parliament. Thus it is wrong
to reject the existence of interpellation, as it is not a proscribed practice
in a presidential system.
However, there are some basic distinctions between interpellation in
the parliamentary and presidential systems. Within the parliamentary system,
interpellation is an initial process that can lead to a motion of no
confidence that could dissolve a government with its cabinet, as
interpellation assesses a government’ policies; one erroneous policy may
result in a motion of no confidence.
Unlike in a parliamentary system, interpellation in a presidential
system is used to request detailed elucidation of a policy, and only when the
questioned policy meets the clauses for the removal of the president can the
impeachment process be initiated.
Under our Constitution, interpellation may lead to impeachment if the
president is found to have committed the deeds regulated by Article 7A of the
Constitution — proven guilty of violation of the law through an act of
treason, corruption, bribery or other acts of grave criminal nature, or
through moral turpitude, and/or no longer meeting the qualifications to serve
as president. Thus impeachment is constitutionally impossible on the grounds
of a policy, unless the policy contains elements of legal violation.
This means that the notion that interpellation might lead to
impeachment is an excessive fear. Interpellation in our presidential system
is more of a control instrument and means of public deliberation of a certain
policy, and is not a route heading toward impeachment.
Regrettably, though impeachment is legally unviable, it is not
politically impossible. In Indonesia, politics repeatedly finds its own logic
through unlawful means in many cases. And fear materializes itself in such a
context; the Red-and-White Coalition as the very locomotive
of opposition is considerably hazardous in light of its recurring
political maneuvers.
The fact that interpellation is a common conduct is inevitable. Fuel is
a strategic commodity and has wide effects when its price rises. Currently,
its wide effects are visible; rises in prices and tariffs, and other
consequences. Requesting certain information is undeniably the constitutional
right of DPR members.
Back to politics, it would be overly ambitious if interpellation were
used as an instrument to initiate impeachment. Many suspect that DPR members
will frantically seek justification to relate to Article 7A and then foster
attempts for the freedom of opinion rights that will culminate in
impeachment.
This is the point where legal consciousness and political maturity are
required from both the government and the House. The government should not
deny the existence of interpellation. It must be aware that interpellation is
a constitutional mechanism provided to extend the checks-and-balances
principle between the branches of power.
At the same time, the House should not treat interpellation as a mere
political tool and forget the origin of its juridical significance in the
1945 Constitution.
Only through legal consciousness and political maturity can
interpellation be a good solution in maintaining our presidential system.
Otherwise its use would disrupt the image of Indonesia and its presidential
system, and eventually, lead to increasing divisions in the House, the
government and society. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar