Revision of DPR Tatib Could Erode Public Trust, Prabowo Asked to Act

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The efforts of the House of Representatives to expand its authority by being able to evaluate state officials are considered excessive. President Prabowo Subianto is urged to take action to remind his coalition parties in the DPR. This is because the implementation of this regulation can not only damage inter-institutional relations and the state governance system but also negatively affect the public's trust in law enforcement.

Previously, 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 selected. They added one article, namely Article 228A, to the rules of procedure. The addition of this article was agreed upon in the 12th plenary session of the DPR RI for the second session of the 2024-2025 legislative year.

With the enactment of the revised DPR Rules of Procedure, now all state officials appointed in the DPR Plenary Session can be evaluated by the DPR, including the leaders of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), commissioners of the General Elections Commission (KPU) and the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu), as well as judges of the Constitutional Court (MK) and the Supreme Court (MA).

The Executive Director of the Indonesian Survey Institute (LSI), Djayadi Hanan, considers the revision of the DPR's Rules of Procedure to be excessive because its members are too arrogant with the power they possess. In fact, there are boundaries of executive, legislative, and judicial duties that should be adhered to.

If the DPR truly controls the judges, then the potential for the politicization of law enforcement and the judiciary becomes very high. This will erode the public's trust in law enforcement and the eradication of corruption.

"The DPR has somewhat overstepped. The rules of procedure should only regulate internal matters. Members of the DPR should understand our constitutional system. There are boundaries that they should adhere to. I am concerned that the public will perceive the DPR as not understanding the law and state ethics because of this insistence," said Djayadi in an online press conference on the results of the LSI survey, Sunday (February 9, 2025).

Djayadi also believes that this regulation has the potential to cause the politicization of law and the judiciary. Judges will be more easily evaluated and then dismissed by the DPR. Moreover, the terms politicization or criminalization often arise in various law enforcement cases.

"If the DPR truly controls the judges, then the potential for the politicization of law enforcement and the judiciary becomes very high. This will erode the public's trust in law enforcement and the eradication of corruption," said Djayadi.

Therefore, Djayadi stated that the field of law enforcement deserves the government's attention. This is because, according to the LSI survey results for the January 2025 period, only 41.6 percent of the public rated law enforcement in Indonesia positively. This means that not yet a majority of the public views law enforcement in Indonesia favorably, while more than a quarter actually consider law enforcement to still be poor.

"If law enforcement is low, it will inevitably reduce the level of positive evaluation of the public towards the government. If the level of evaluation towards the government is low, then legitimacy becomes low. This has an impact on low compliance. So, there must be a re-evaluation of the DPR's steps. After all, for the government to run well, it needs a level of compliance from the public as a whole," said Djayadi.

Professor of the Faculty of Law, Jenderal Soedirman University, Hibnu Nugroho reminded that the DPR does play a role in selecting state institutions but does not appoint them because the one who has the authority is the President. This authority also exists in the dismissal of the head of the institution, so that the authority of the DPR which can carry out the removal can damage the order of government management.

"It's true that he (DPR) chooses, but the one who appoints and dismisses is the President. How come the one who dismisses the Council? This is offside in a government management system related to the swearing-in. So, I think this needs to be given an understanding so that it doesn't become chaotic," said Hibnu.

Hibnu reminded again the division of power through Trias Politica which is divided between the executive, legislative, and judiciary which complement each other but have different functions. However, the DPR Tatib that was created is feared to reduce the authority of the executive, namely the President.

Hibnu warned that the revision of the DPR Tatib could reduce the independence of law enforcers because the DPR could interfere and even remove their superiors at any time. This is feared to make the situation worse so that the country no longer has a complete grip.

"This is very dangerous for the future government. The spirit of a country is in law enforcement. So, don't let chaos happen because the police, the prosecutor's office, the Supreme Court, and the Constitutional Court are being interfered with (by the DPR), so that there is no peace and independence," said Hibnu.

Professor of Constitutional Law and Regional Government Law at Satya Wacana Christian University, Umbu Rauta, opined that President Prabowo Subianto needs to encourage his coalition parties to listen to and consider public aspirations regarding the revision of the DPR Tatib. The President's performance is also disrupted because the DPR has exceeded its authority so he needs to respond to the regulation.

However, as head of government, Umbu continued, the President finds it difficult to push the DPR directly because their capacities are equal. However, the President could push political parties with an informal approach as well as to test the solidity of the coalition that brought Prabowo as the number one person in this country.

"Encouragement to the President's party cadres in the DPR to the coalition party can be done through informal channels. Political parties through factions can encourage DPR members to reflect and consider input from the public, as part of the meaningful participation award," he said.

Moreover, the DPR regulation must not create new norms that have the potential to disrupt state institutional relations. Therefore, Umbu reminded the DPR to carefully consider the scope of the material content of the type of legal product in the form of the DPR Regulation.

Separately, a member of the House of Representatives Legislation Body (Baleg) from the Democratic Party Faction, Benny K Harman, insisted that an evaluation process was still needed for state officials who had received approval through a plenary meeting of the House of Representatives and those sent by the House. However, he disagreed if the evaluation immediately resulted in dismissal.

"That's what I said earlier, as long as (state officials) are the exclusive authority of the DPR, then it is possible (evaluation) to be carried out, right? But if the recruitment involves other state institutions, well, we can't end up removing them, right, we can't," said Benny.

He then gave an example, meaning that there are only three MK judges proposed by the DPR that can be evaluated. Because, the other six judges are proposed by the MA and the President so that the DPR has no authority to evaluate the six judges.

Then, the Chief of Police, according to Benny, is also very likely to be evaluated by the DPR. He is of the view that the DPR has the authority to propose the dismissal of the Chief of Police, but the dismissal must be discussed with the President, as regulated in Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the Indonesian National Police.

"However, to replace him, it cannot be done immediately. The term of office of a Constitutional Court judge, for example, is five years according to the law. Right, he cannot be dismissed midway. If he does not perform, can he be dismissed midway? It could be through, for example, the impeachment process (charges for certain actions that can be grounds for dismissal)," said Benny.

Likewise with other state officials. "Same with the President, can he be dismissed? Yes. How? Impeachment. This is what should be suggested, you know. We should not retain, for example, Constitutional Court judges or Supreme Court judges or (leaders of) the Corruption Eradication Commission, like Firli (Bahuri) now, who is unclear, right? It will disrupt the corruption eradication system. Well, that is also important for legal certainty," said Benny.

As is known, Firli Bahuri was the Chairman of the KPK for the 2019-2024 period. At the end of his leadership, Firli was caught in a case of alleged gratification and extortion against former Minister of Agriculture Syahrul Yasin Limpo. The case was handled by Polda Metro Jaya. However, Firli has not been detained for his case even though he has been named a suspect for months. When the case surfaced, Firli seemed to disappear from the public.

Benny continued, the most important thing from this evaluation process later must have a clear basis, one of which is the performance results of the state officials concerned. The recommendation results are not directly dismissing the person concerned, but could be recommendations for improving the recruitment system.

"So evaluating the system is so that later, right, the results are good or not, the outcome is good or not, you know. We evaluate it and make recommendations. The recommendations are, for example, wow, this recruitment system must be improved," said Benny.

He also admitted that in the past few years, Commission III of the DPR had also discussed how when there were state administrators chosen by the DPR who did not show good performance. For example, there were complaints about supreme court judges who had never handled a single case, and MK judges who were also problematic. However, he did not reveal the details of the problematic judges' intentions.

"Then there was the idea, yes, if possible, it is necessary to impeach those, state administrators like that, right, you know. So, actually in a positive frame of mind, yes, checks and balances, not in order to undermine, it can't be done," said Benny.