TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The petition to remove limits on Constitutional Court judges's terms of office is absurd. The arguments used to support the proposal are weak. In fact, the drawback of appointing judges for life is considerable: it could lead to judges abusing their powers.
The weakness of the argument is apparent from the petition proposed by the University of Indonesia Center for the Study of Strategic Issues. This is the body that asked for a reexamination of Article 22 of Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court. This article, which limits the term of office of constitutional judges to two periods, or five years, is viewed as conflicting with the Constitution.
However, the Center has been unable to show exactly how it goes against the 1945 Constitution. The problem is that Article 24 of the Constitution, which is the basis for the petition, only covers general matters, namely an independent court system. Meanwhile, Article 24-C leaves the dismissal and appointment of constitutional judges to the law.
The reason given for the petition, that lifetime appointments would make constitutional judges more independent, is very strange. The independence of the judges would be more under threat. These judges would be prone to infiltration of interests from outsiders and to political interests, but they would not be able to be corrected or replaced until they died.
The excuse that limits on terms are discriminating is also misplaced. There are terms of office for constitutional judges, namely a term of five years which can be renewed once. But it is wrong to say that the terms of other judges are unlimited. Judges in criminal courts can only work until they retire, not for their entire lives.
There is a huge risk that if the Constitutional Court grants this petition, the judges will be free of any control. However, they have extraordinary powers to test all laws and rule on disputes over the authority of state institutions, including deciding on the dismissal of the president.
The actions of the Constitutional Court appear to be rather arbitrary. Since its establishment in 2003, it has passed many controversial rulings that have triggered public criticism, leading to observations that some of its rulings do not support efforts to eradicate corruption. The Court has reduced the powers of the Judicial Commission to such an extent, that now it can only select Supreme Court judges. The image of the court was dealt a severe blow when Constitutional Court Chairman Akil Mochtar was detained by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) a few years ago.
If the image of the Court is to be restored, the judges should reject this petition for a review. The term limits for constitutional judges is a good thing. There would still be a mechanism to control them. If they perform well, they can be selected to serve another term, but if they do badly, they can be dismissed.
It would be very dangerous if there were no limits on the constitutional judges' terms of office. Let the House of Representatives (DPR) consider and decide on this matter. As it happens, the revisions to the Constitutional Court Law are listed in the agenda of the DPR's legislation body.
It would be unseemly for the constitutional judges to rule on a matter that concerns their own interests. If this were to happen, it would show even more clearly an unethical and arbitrary stance. (*)
Read the full story in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine
