Increasingly Loud Criticism, DPR Invites Public to Test Tatib Material at MA

JAKARTA, KOMPAS - The expansion of the authority of the DPR to evaluate state officials they have chosen continues to receive criticism from the public. The DPR allows the public who disagree with the results of the revision of the DPR's Rules of Procedure, which grants this expanded authority, to challenge it in the Supreme Court.

On Tuesday (4/2/2025), the DPR swiftly revised DPR Regulation Number 1 of 2020 concerning Rules of Procedure (Tatib). One of the revised points allows the DPR to periodically evaluate state officials they have appointed.

Professor of Constitutional Law at Padjadjaran University Bandung, Susi Dwi Harijanti, when contacted in Jakarta, Friday (7/2/2025), reminded that the DPR's internal regulations only apply internally. The DPR's internal regulations do not have external reach and are not generally binding, but rather binding internally, namely to the members of the DPR.

"So, from that perspective, it is certainly not possible with the DPR's rules of procedure, for them to evaluate and even provide recommendations for the dismissal of state officials they have chosen," said Susi.

Susi also questioned the background of the changes to the DPR's Rules of Procedure. Ideally, changes to the DPR's Rules of Procedure should be accompanied by a study that can be accounted for, concerning the reasons why the DPR feels it has the authority to evaluate the state officials they have chosen.

"There must be an urgency document. In that document, we can analyze whether there is a need or not, and that need must be justified as objectively as possible, because the study document is a scientific accountability, not merely fulfilling a highly political need. It can't be done," said Susi.

If members of the DPR feel that this evaluation is needed to maximize the oversight function, Susi doubts it. It should be remembered that the DPR is a political institution. Therefore, if the DPR conducts evaluations without rigid standards, criteria, and procedures, it will disrupt the implementation of the functions, duties, and authorities of the officials nominated in the DPR.

Moreover, with the expansion of the DPR's authority, political intervention is feared to become even stronger. The potential for politicization of positions in independent institutions such as the Constitutional Court (MK), the Supreme Court (MA), and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), as well as the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia, is also increasing.

"So, with the DPR being able to conduct evaluations, it can affect the independence of those institutions. Why? Because evaluations can very easily slip into political evaluations," emphasized Susi.

For that, Susi continued, let each institution carry out its evaluation and supervision functions internally. She also reminded that this country does not adopt a parliamentary system of government. Do not let political parties reflected in the DPR factions become an arena for transactions.

"What we want is for political institutions to become an arena of dignity, not an arena for transactions. Because, if the DPR becomes an arena for transactions, this is far from the people's expectations," said Susi.

He saw that by expanding its authority, the DPR seemed to want to interpret the authority it had as much as possible, so that it could evaluate the state officials they chose. He called this phenomenon political shock. After the reformation, the DPR had very broad authority. Now, the DPR seems to be experiencing a shock where it has great authority but is unable to manage that authority according to its objectives based on the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and the constitution.

"The DPR wants to show the public that they have this authority. So it's just an expose, without paying attention to the main principles in the 1945 Constitution. What are they? The principles of democracy, the principles of the rule of law, and constitutional principles. Constitutionalism, right, is essentially limiting power," said Susi.

Separately, a member of the House of Representatives from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) faction, Adian Napitupulu, said that people who do not agree with the changes to the DPR's Tatib are welcome to sue it in court.

"We now have a mechanism, you do not agree, when it conflicts with the constitution or law, yes you JR (judicial review). And we want all people to be able to follow that mechanism. So that the disagreement is channeled through the constitutional mechanism. That's all," said Adian. For DPR regulations, JR can be submitted to the Supreme Court (MA).

Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Legislative Body (Baleg) of the DPR, Bob Hasan, emphasized that the DPR has no authority to remove officials. The DPR only provides recommendations based on the results of evaluations of officials who have been tested by the DPR.

"So it applies inherently, but then because of the applicable mechanism, the recommendation of the evaluation results is given by consensus to the authorized agency. Who is the highest? For example, the President, if it is at the Supreme Court, it can go to the Judicial Commission. It depends on the authority of the official holding the authority himself," said Bob.

Bob claims that the new article in the DPR Tatib only confirms the DPR's duties and authorities that have been running so far. However, the evaluation is strengthened by official recommendations from the commission that will be ratified by the plenary later.

"So it's not a removal. Yes, in the end, the official who is authorized by the DPR's periodic evaluation finally made a decision to remove, it wasn't the DPR that removed. We conducted an evaluation because we have the authority over the fit and proper test, we passed the candidate. So we can also provide an evaluation and there is a chapter for that, and the evaluation chapter can conduct consultations by consensus. That is the authority of our rules of procedure," he said.