Jakarta, IO – Eliminating the superlative subjective authority of the Indonesian People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) is tantamount to diminishing the highest power of a sovereign people. People’s power determines the direction of the nation-state and should be restored to complement the power to elect the president and the members of Parliament.
An understanding of people’s sovereignty should be comprehensive, not partial. So should the implementation or manifestation of the people’s sovereignty – it must be whole and complete. To refresh your memory: sovereignty of the Indonesian people is final, since it has been signed and sealed in the Fourth Principle of Pancasila, a wise representation of democracy. This Fourth Principle is final and must be observed unconditionally. This precept stipulates that the highest power in a nation-state is in the hands of the people. The logical consequence of purifying the manifestation of popular sovereignty is the unconditional recognition that the source of power of the nation-state is the people themselves. The Government must also originate from the people, run by the people and solely serve the people. So, the people use their power to elect the president as their proxy and appoint or elect their representatives to play a role in voicing their aspirations in representative councils.
When talking about people as the holders of the highest power, the people’s power to elect the president has been fulfilled, making the president the people’s proxy. Likewise, the people’s highest power to elect parliamentary members leads to the consequence that members of the House of Representatives (DPR)/ Regional Legislative Council (DPRD)/ Regional Representative Council (DPD), are obliged as people’s representatives to voice and fight for the people’s aspirations and interests.
However, the people’s highest power is no longer complete because people’s deliberative power to give mandates to the proxy – the president – has been eliminated. By enacting Article 7 of Law 12/2011 on the formation of legislative regulations, it is implied that the MPR can no longer produce MPR Resolutions (TAP MPR).
The implementation of this law presents two contradictions. Essentially, Article 7 of Law 12/2011 denies the authority of the legal hierarchy, which places MPR Resolutions in second place, below the 1945 Constitution. This article only acknowledges the Resolutions of the Provisional People’s Consultative Assembly (TAP MPRS) and TAP MPR until 2002. After removing the superlative subjective authority of the MPR, what is the point of placing the TAP MPR in the legislative hierarchy? Since 2002, hasn’t the MPR lost its constitutional role in creating TAP MPR?
The second contradiction is the loss of rights and responsibilities between the people and their proxy. The people, as the holder of the highest power, have lost their right to give their mandates to their proxy. Automatically, the President’s responsibility as the people’s proxy to accept mandates from the people is eliminated. Thus, it is no longer relevant to position the President as the people’s proxy.
So, the logical consequence is that the legislative hierarchy must be altered, including eliminating TAP MPR from the hierarchy. The existing hierarchy or the order of state legislation includes Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution, TAP MPR, Law/ Government Regulation in Lieu of Law, Presidential Decrees, Provincial Regulations and Regency/City Regulations.
Even if the hierarchy is preserved, the legal order will still lose its strategic significance as long as the superlative subjective authority of the MPR is not restored. On the other hand, if the statutory hierarchy is to be maintained with strategic significance, the logical outcome is to eliminate the interpretation of Article 7 of Law 12/2011 through a judicial review.
At least two strategic meanings will emerge from restoring MPR’s superlative subjective authority. The first meaning is to restore and refine people’s supreme power to create TAP MPR because the Resolutions must be seen and accepted as a formulation of the highest aspirations of all elements of society of the nationstate. To fulfill various interests, the people are always urged to be proactive in formulating strategic policies.
More than that, every strategic policy issued and implemented through TAP MPR should be understood as an initiative solely aiming for the common good of the nation-state elements. This is because the strategic policy or TAP MPR was produced from the consensus of all elements of the people in the constitutional deliberative/representative assembly. The second strategic meaning of restoring MPR’s superlative subjective authority is to refine and reaffirm the people’s rights as the holder of the highest mandate-giving authority, and the President’s responsibility as the people’s proxy is to carry out the people’s mandate. With the confirmation of rights and responsibilities, the President, as the people’s proxy, indeed possesses strategic and constitutional meaning.
On the other hand, eliminating MPR’s superlative subjective authority should be seen as an attempt to diminish the people’s highest power, particularly the power to mandate the President as their proxy. Consequently, the stipulation that the President is the people’s proxy will lose its meaning. With the absence of MPR’s superlative subjective authority, does not it mean that the people are prevented from giving a mandate to the President or head of government elected by the people?
Since the President is elected by the people, the people’s mandate to their proxy becomes inevitable. The people’s mandate must be complied with and implemented. Supervision of compliance and implementation of the people’s mandate should be jointly performed by the DPR-MPR.
On the contrary, if the president believes that he has no obligation to receive a direct mandate from the people who elected him, despotism may emerge in various aspects of governance and development.
Read: Presidential Election Registration Is Complete
To sum up, even though the Indonesian people are sovereign, the fact is that the power of the people in determining the direction or future of the nation-state through deliberation/representation is currently not achieved. It repudiates the Fourth Principle of Pancasila: wise representation of democracy.
Therefore, the people’s power to stipulate through TAP MPR should be restored as promptly as possible, which also illustrates the manifestation of people’s sovereignty as the source of power of the nationstate.