DPR's Authority to Remove State Officials Deemed Unconstitutional

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The decision of the DPR to expand its authority, namely to evaluate officials they have chosen or proposed, through procedural regulations, has drawn criticism from various circles. This step is considered unconstitutional. The DPR is also deemed not to understand the 1945 Constitution. Behind this move, the DPR is suspected of wanting to control other state institutions, especially those whose officials are chosen/proposed by the DPR.

Researcher from the Forum of Concerned Citizens for the Indonesian Parliament (Formappi), Lucius Karus, when contacted on Wednesday (5/2/2025) in Jakarta, stated that the DPR's decision to swiftly revise DPR Regulation Number 1 of 2020 on Rules of Procedure, one of which allows the DPR to periodically evaluate state officials they have chosen, is unacceptable.

The DPR's rules of procedure are merely technical internal regulations of the parliamentary institution, which are based on the Law concerning the MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD or the MD3 Law as the sole reference.

"If the DPR wants to add new authorities, the only way is through a revision of the MD3 Law. After the law is revised, the technical regulations can be included through the DPR's Rules of Procedure," said Lucius.

On Tuesday (February 4, 2025), during the 12th Plenary Session of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) for the Second Session Period of the 2024-2025 Legislative Year, it was agreed to add one article in the revision of the DPR's Rules of Procedure, namely Article 228A.

The article states, in order to improve the supervisory function and maintain the honor of the DPR regarding the results of the commission's discussions, the DPR can conduct periodic evaluations of candidates who have been determined in the DPR plenary meeting. The results of the evaluation are binding and are submitted by the commission conducting the evaluation to the DPR leadership for follow-up in accordance with the applicable mechanism.

With the ratification of the revised DPR Tatib, now all state officials appointed in the DPR plenary meeting can be evaluated by the DPR, including the leadership of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), commissioners of the General Election Commission (KPU) and the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu), up to judges of the Constitutional Court (MK) and judges of the Supreme Court (MA).

According to Lucius, the new DPR regulation may have been created as an effort to control institutions whose officials are elected by the DPR, so that every decision they make follows the will of the DPR. This desire for control is inseparable from several decisions made by institutions that are considered detrimental to the DPR. For example, the Constitutional Court (MK) decisions that often annul articles/laws made by the DPR.

"The spirit of changing the Rules of Procedure is fundamentally flawed. This is equivalent to destroying the roles and functions of state institutions. So, with this regulation, it seems that the DPR wants to undermine all state institutions whose officials they propose," he said.

He reminded that the addition of articles in the rules of procedure is not needed because the authority to evaluate state officials proposed and selected by the DPR already has its own mechanisms in accordance with the laws that underlie the formation of these institutions, including how the evaluation, supervision, and dismissal of their officials are conducted.

Therefore, the DPR's new authority or task to evaluate the officials they nominate is not in line with the regulations regarding the duties and functions of these officials in accordance with the laws that regulate them.

"The serious impact if the DPR's authority evaluates the officials they propose is a very serious conflict of interest. Officials who work to test the laws produced by the DPR will certainly not be free to work if because of their stance on a particular law, they could lose their position after being evaluated by the DPR. In other words, the DPR's evaluation function will damage the independence of officials who work on the orders of the law," said Lucius.

Member of the National Conscience Movement, Lukman Hakim Saifuddin, even assessed that the results of the revision of the DPR Tatib were unconstitutional.

The reason is that the DPR's rights and authority to propose candidates for officials such as MK judge candidates, approve Supreme Court judge candidates, or elect KPK commissioners, are only limited to the election of state institution members. This is not at all related to the DPR's authority to dismiss the officials of the state institutions in question. The mechanism for their dismissal has also been regulated separately in the laws establishing each state institution.

"If the DPR has the authority to dismiss state officials whose election mechanism is through the DPR, then the TNI Commander, the Chief of Police, and ambassadors can also be dismissed at any time by the DPR. If that is the case, the implementation of our state system will be chaotic," said Lukman.

In line with Lucius, Lukman also assessed that the DPR Tatib only regulates and binds the internal DPR. The provisions may not regulate and bind other state institutions outside the DPR. "The DPR must be guided by the constitution," said Lukman.

Andalas University constitutional law lecturer Feri Amsari assessed that the DPR needs to study the differences between DPR regulations and provisions of the Law. He suspects that the DPR has not read and understood the 1945 Constitution.

"If he corrects the judicial institution and can dismiss judges, he violates the concept of Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution on independent judicial power. If then judges can be dismissed, of course they are no longer independent in administering justice," said Feri.

Feri continued, it is impossible for regulations under the Law to degrade what has been regulated in the Law, let alone in the 1945 Constitution. "If this is allowed to happen, this will be the most absurd DPR that has ever existed in this Republic. The way the DPR interferes in the legal process is clearly an attempt to build political bargaining to influence other trials," said Feri.