Oleh : Zainal Arifin Mochtar (Pengajar Ilmu Hukum; Ketua PUKAT FH UGM)
Certain members of the House of Representatives (DPR), all of whom are from the opposition Red-and-White Coalition, have filed an interpellation motion to question the policy of raising fuel prices.
This is not an unorthodox measure considering fuel is a key commodity, especially after the fuel-price rise.
Moreover, the Red-and-White Coalition positions itself as the government’s opposition.
Yet as Indonesia practices a presidential government system, would interpellation be suitable? Let’s look at the implication of this right to raise opinion toward impeachment.
Interpellation is the right of DPR members to request information from the government concerning imperative and strategic governmental policies widely affecting the lives of the people.
That is how Article 20A of the 1945 Constitution grants the right to House members, which is regulated further under the provisions in the Legislative Institution Law No. 17/2014, known as the MD3 Law. Interpellation provides the right for DPR members to compel the government to elucidate an undertaken policy.
Interestingly, interpellation is closer to the parliamentary system, where it is an instrument used by parliament to control policies run by the primus inter pares and his or her cabinet. However, interpellation is also found in countries with a presidential system.
Scott Mainwaring (1994) was reluctant to define interpellation as a trait distinguishing the parliamentary from the presidential system.
Indeed many presidential countries use interpellation as part of the checks and balances between the government and parliament. Thus it is wrong to reject the existence of interpellation, as it is not a proscribed practice in a presidential system.
However, there are some basic distinctions between interpellation in the parliamentary and presidential systems. Within the parliamentary system, interpellation is an initial process that can lead to a motion of no confidence that could dissolve a government with its cabinet, as interpellation assesses a government’ policies; one erroneous policy may result in a motion of no confidence.
Unlike in a parliamentary system, interpellation in a presidential system is used to request detailed elucidation of a policy, and only when the questioned policy meets the clauses for the removal of the president can the impeachment process be initiated.
Under our Constitution, interpellation may lead to impeachment if the president is found to have committed the deeds regulated by Article 7A of the Constitution — proven guilty of violation of the law through an act of treason, corruption, bribery or other acts of grave criminal nature, or through moral turpitude, and/or no longer meeting the qualifications to serve as president. Thus impeachment is constitutionally impossible on the grounds of a policy, unless the policy contains elements of legal violation.
This means that the notion that interpellation might lead to impeachment is an excessive fear. Interpellation in our presidential system is more of a control instrument and means of public deliberation of a certain policy, and is not a route heading toward impeachment.
Regrettably, though impeachment is legally unviable, it is not politically impossible. In Indonesia, politics repeatedly finds its own logic through unlawful means in many cases. And fear materializes itself in such a context; the Red-and-White Coalition as the very locomotive
of opposition is considerably hazardous in light of its recurring political maneuvers.
The fact that interpellation is a common conduct is inevitable. Fuel is a strategic commodity and has wide effects when its price rises. Currently, its wide effects are visible; rises in prices and tariffs, and other consequences. Requesting certain information is undeniably the constitutional right of DPR members.
Back to politics, it would be overly ambitious if interpellation were used as an instrument to initiate impeachment. Many suspect that DPR members will frantically seek justification to relate to Article 7A and then foster attempts for the freedom of opinion rights that will culminate in impeachment.
This is the point where legal consciousness and political maturity are required from both the government and the House. The government should not deny the existence of interpellation. It must be aware that interpellation is a constitutional mechanism provided to extend the checks-and-balances principle between the branches of power.
At the same time, the House should not treat interpellation as a mere political tool and forget the origin of its juridical significance in the 1945 Constitution.
Only through legal consciousness and political maturity can interpellation be a good solution in maintaining our presidential system. Otherwise its use would disrupt the image of Indonesia and its presidential system, and eventually, lead to increasing divisions in the House, the government and society.
artikel ini pernah diterbitkan oleh JAKARTA POST, pada 09 Desember 2014