By: Firdaus ArifinWriter: Lecturer Constitutional Law Section and Secretary of Constitutional Studies Center Faculty of Law, University of Pasundan, Bandung, West Java, Indonesian.
PLAN a number of members of the House of Representatives (DPR) to seek clarification about the government's pro-contra increase the price of Fuel (BBM), eventually led to the use of the rights questionnaire House. Once through the process long and winding debate, Parliament finally approved the usage of the rights questionnaire to investigate the policy (policy) that the government raised fuel prices by the end of last May. Approval was obtained after the voting (voting) is open in the House of Representatives plenary session at the Parliament Building, Senayan, Jakarta, Tuesday (24 / 6). From the 360 House members who are present and vote, as many as 233 members of Parliament from eight faction in the House (F-PDIP, F-PPP, F-PAN, F-PKB, F-MCC, F-BPD, M-PBR, F-PDS) supports the usage of the rights questionnaire fuel price hike and the remaining 127 members of Parliament who came from two faction (85 people from the F-PG and the F-42 Democratic Party) rejected the use right of the fuel price hike questionnaire. The success of the usage rights of inquiry by the House fuel price hike was supposed to be greeted with joy, because for the first time in the reign of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), House of Representatives 2004-2009 period managed to successfully pass a questionnaire rights. Previously, the usage rights of the questionnaire by the Parliament in overseeing the government's policies merely empty discourse style pepesan senayan politicians (read: members of the House) that his endings always end in failure because it was so dominant lobbying and political pressure played by the government.
In addition, with the usage rights have been agreed questionnaire fuel price hike by the House, from this point at least the government should be prepared to explain in a transparent about the reasons for raising fuel prices. Various problems such as oil and gas fields are not passed fuel economy program, alternative energy development programs, systems direct fuel subsidies, rampant smuggling of fuel out of the country, the existence of a broker (broker) of oil to the low level of domestic oil production from year to year will be a number important questions will be asked the Special Committee (Special Committee) surveys the right fuel price hike soon Parliament will be formed.
We all certainly hope the government can best provide answers and explanations to the Special Committee questionnaire right fuel price hike on various issues mentioned above, and not just looking for justification (justification) for policies that have been made, or limited to "counterattack" to the politicians in Senayan. And it's good government explanation was also followed by the delivery of data and facts that really happened and the strategic plan that will be the next to fix the bawdy Marut policy for this oil and gas sector.
Legality Rights Questionnaire
In accordance with the formula contained in Article 20A Paragraph (1) Basic Law (Constitution) in 1945, the House of Representatives as an institution of public representation has three kinds of functions, namely functions legislatures (legislative), the budget function (budgetair), and supervisory functions (control). To perform these various functions, the House is equipped with a variety of rights which are distinguished into two categories: First, rights are institutional (institutional) and secondly, personal rights (personal) each member of the House. Various kinds of institutional rights include the right of Parliament to request information (interpellation), the right of an investigation (questionnaire) and the right to express opinions. As for personal rights of each member of the House include the right to ask questions, the right to propose suggestions and opinions and the right of immunity (Article 20A Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution). As an institutional right of the Parliament, the right questionnaire is part of the oversight function of Parliament. Judging from the aspect of legality and constitutionality, the position of the House of questionnaire rights can be said to have a legal basis is very strong. He is clearly regulated in the 1945 Body Bar, particularly Article 20A Paragraph (2) which states, in carrying out its functions, in addition to the rights regulated in other articles of the Constitution, the House of Representatives has the right of interpellation, the right questionnaire, and right to express opinions.
Then the existence of the rights questionnaire Parliament also explicitly stated in Article 27 point (b) of Law Number 22 Year 2003 concerning the composition Ranks (Susduk) MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD, and the Rules and Regulations (Tatib) House of Representatives Article 176 through Article 183. In fact, in the explanation of Article 27 point (b) Law No. 22/2003 on Susduk MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD, formulated in a clear and detailed understanding of the rights questionnaire. The understanding is the explanation of the rights questionnaire according to Article 27 point (b) Law No. 22/2003 is the right of Parliament to conduct investigations into government policies and strategic importance and impact on social life and a country that allegedly violated the laws and regulations. However, Law No. 22/2003 does not regulate clearly and in detail about the implementation of the rights questionnaire. Act which regulates in detail the mechanism of the use right of the House inquiry is Law No. 6 / 1954 on the Rights of the House Questionnaire. Law is derived from the time of parliamentary system of government under the Constitution The Year 1950 (UUDS 1950) which until now has never changed and was formally revoked by the formation Act (See: House of Representatives and the President). In fact, the Constitutional Court (MK) in the decision dated March 26, 2004 the past has insisted that the Law No. 6 / 1954 on the Rights of Parliament Questionnaires are still valid and has binding force under the provisions of Article I Rules of the 1945 transition. Thus, there is no any doubt for the House to use the provisions contained in Law No. 6 / 1954 to implement the fuel price hike questionnaire rights.
Presidential Impeachment
Now the real problem is not with the legality or constitutionality of the use right of inquiry by the House fuel price hike, but the political direction of travel surveys right forward fuel price hike. This is mainly related to the issue of whether the usage right of inquiry by the House fuel price hike could lead to the impeachment process (impeachment) President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono from his position as president?. This issue becomes very important to put forward and studied further, considering the consequences of the usage rights of the questionnaire can be used as the entrance to the House of Representatives to begin the process of presidential impeachment. Of course the record, if in the process of inquiry investigating the rights found in the fuel price hike there were indications that the President has violated the provisions of impeachment the president (impeachment articles) as stated in Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution which, if proven to have violated the law in an act of treason , corruption, bribery, other felonies, or moral turpitude or if it is proven no longer qualifies as president and / or vice president. From the description of the constitutional impeachment criteria mentioned above, it is clear that the government's policy on fuel price increase can not be the basis for the Parliament to conduct the impeachment of President SBY, because a policy can not be used as the basis for the dismissal of a president in his tenure tegah. Using a policy to dismiss the head of government is only known within a patterned system of parliamentary government. However, if it desires in its development and political interests of the House is too large to dismiss the President SBY in the middle of his term, the results of the 1945 changes have provided a mechanism which requires that the House of opinion must be tested first on the forum konstitusionalitasnya basic Constitutional Court (MK)) Section 7B Paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution). If the Court decides is proved, then the House will hold a plenary session for the proposal to impeach the President and / or Vice-President of the Assembly (paragraph 5 of Article 7B jo Article 1945 Rules and Regulations 190 House of Representatives).
Finally, I hope the right questionnaire that has been the fuel price hike will be rolled out over the House with the benefit of the petroleum needs of the people of Indonesia and not merely to satisfy the libido senayan power politicians. In addition, the Parliament's decision about the rights of the questionnaire should also be utilized as an effort to comprehensively fix the national energy policy profanity during this. For, if the usage rights to the questionnaire did not touch the fundamental aspect, the community prepared to look negatively on the rights of the fuel price hike questionnaire has been agreed by the House.
0 komentar:
Post a Comment