Sunday, July 1, 2007

Improve Function House of Representatives Legislation

By: Firdaus Arifin
Writer: Lecturer Constitutional Law Section and Secretary of Constitutional Studies Center Faculty of Law, University of Pasundan, Bandung, West Java, Indonesian.
Published by: Constitution Magazine Edisi April-May 2007.

PERFORMANCE House of Representatives (DPR) 2004-2009 period, particularly in the field of legislation is very bad and disappointing. Cancellation of a number of articles in the Law of the Judicial Commission and several other law by the Constitutional Court (MK) during the year 2006, indicating at least there was something wrong in the process of law (law making process) is carried out by the House so far.
In addition, not least the resulting Parliament Act overlap with any other Act. For example, a judge oversight function by the Judicial Commission (KY) is regulated in Law no. 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission, in addition to conflict with the Constitution in 1945, is also not in line with the supervisory functions provided for in Law No. 5 Year 2004 on the Supreme Court. All of this is clear evidence inaccuracy Parliament Act in the product mix into a comprehensive system and is a reflection of the poor quality of legislation produced by the House. In addition to bad in terms of quality, when viewed in terms of quantity, the Act produced by the House of Representatives 2004-2009 period, is still far below the target achievement. For the year 2006, of 78 bills (bill) is the target for resolution, the Parliament is only able to complete 37 of the Act. Even not only that, the House was also less keen to establish what law should be prioritized according to the needs of the community.

Seeing the reality of the above, as the people who gave the mandate and trust worthy to be disappointed and angry at the poor performance of the representative legislation. The disappointment of the people of the poor performance in the field of legislative representatives is not without reason. Is not in any process of making a law not a cost to be paid by the people. Might reach billions of rupiah to be issued to produce a single law. This can be seen from the data on budget allocation for it in the Parliament Act which was issued some time ago by the General Secretariat (Secretary General) House of Representatives. Based on these data, for the year 2006, the budget allocation for the manufacture of the Act by the Parliament is USD 640 million by one law, and for this year (2007) budget allocation for the manufacture of the Act by the Parliament have increased up to USD 1.2 billion by one Act.

In addition, the reality of poor performance in the field of legislation the House provides a very valuable lesson to us. Apparently, by strengthening the role and functions of the House legislation, are not able to change the performance of the Parliament Act to institute a good maker. As we know, the post-1945 amendment extreme changes to the House of Representatives legislative function. If before the 1945 amendment, the House of Representatives based on the formulation of Article 5 paragraph (1) and Article 20 paragraph (1) only has a quasi-legislative function in the process of formation of the Act. However, after the first amendment of the 1945 Constitution, the formula contained in Article 5 paragraph (1) and Article 20 paragraph (1) experienced significant changes that have implications for the House as an institution placed primary law-making authority (wetgever primaire). In addition to these two chapters, the dominance of Parliament in the legislative process is reinforced by Article 20 paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution.

When examined at least there are three factors that cause poor performance in the field of legislation the House. These three factors namely, first, the weak awareness of the Parliament of constitutionalism. Thus, in the process of paying less attention to the Parliament Act on the rules of law contained in the body of the 1945 Constitution. Supposedly, as the high state agencies in preparing a law, Parliament must consider the legal norms contained in the 1945 Constitution. This is because the 1945 Constitution as the basic law plays a very important and strategic. And also as the basic law of the state in the hierarchy of all laws and regulations established by all state institutions must be from and not be in conflict with the Constitution of 1945. Second, the absence of blueprints (blue print) a clear and disrupted the national legislation program (Prolegnas) caused by lack of political explanation of existing national laws today. So that the political interests (political interest) that carried the various parties (the political elite parties) is more dominating in every process of law. Consequently, many Law produced by the House and overlaping collide. For example, a crash that occurred between the law in the field of judicial power, such as the Supreme Court Act, Act on Judicial Power, and the Act on the Judicial Commission. Third, in implementing the law making process, the House generally does not have a vision for the future and tend to prioritize short-term political interests than the safety of the nation and was not preceded by research and academic assessment of a bill in depth. As a result, many products produced legislation that quickly become obsolete because it was not able to follow world events. Examples of Law No.13 of 2003 on Employment, now revised as Law-makers lack the ability (read: House of Representatives) to anticipate developments in the community.

Grounded in the issues mentioned above, there is now no other alternative, poor performance in the field of legislation the House should immediately repaired. The steps that can be done now to improve the function of the House legislation is, first, to review (review) Prolegnas 2004-2009 agreed by the Parliament and Government in early February 2005. This needs to be done for 2004-2009 Prolegnas not oriented to produce a quality law-oriented but the quantity of the Act that must be produced. At least this is reflected in the targets as much as 284 Prolegnas Act. That is, every year the House must complete more than 56 law, or more than four UU per month. Of course this job is very heavy and very unlikely the House will produce a quality Act. Second, before making the bill should be an academic manuscript. In view of Ann and Robert Siedman (2001) compilation of academic texts (the concept paper) is one important step in the process of legislation (law making process). Say is important, academic texts needed to explain more open to all stakeholders about the significance the presence of a bill. Third, to maximize public participation (public paricipation) in any process of formation Act. Is not the Law No. 10 Year 2004 on the Formation of Laws and Regulations determined the existence of a duty to involve community participation in every process of law. And also in the Rules and Regulations (Tatib) 139-141 Article DPR determines that the public can provide input either verbally or in writing to Parliament within the framework of the preparation and discussion of a bill. Fourth, the need for Parliament to involve legal experts (legal expert) as a team reviewers (constitutional review panel) in any discussion of the bill. It is expected that the constitutional review panel can make the legitimacy of products produced by the Law on the Parliament became more powerful and can reduce the incompatibility of the Constitution Act 1945. For that Parliament would be holding parties that are competent in accordance with specifications to be made law.

Finally, we hope in the near future Parliament could quickly improve the quality of his work in the field of legislation. Because we do not want a law which created the House continuing to reap the lawsuit, even a "toy" because it can not guard the constitutional rights of people protected in the 1945 Constitution. And one thing that should be remembered by the House the opportunity to improve performance is given by so many people. The days remaining will be the right time to prove to people that the House still wants to improve their performance.

1 komentar:

gratisan92 on 10:51 said...

makasih sob infonya, mampir sob

Google Translate

English French German Spain Italian Dutch

Russian Portuguese Japanese Korean Arabic Chinese Simplified

Law School



Reflection Constitutional Reform 1998-2002

Guest Book

Free Page Rank Tool