The Constitutional Court’s decision, which added legal norms to the requirements for presidential and vice presidential nominations in the election law, made the MK even further away from constitutional justice. After 20 years of reform, a number of decisions illustrate that the Constitutional Court is accustomed to violating its function as guardian of the constitution.
“The Constitutional Court no longer upholds the constitution but accommodates the political aspirations of political actors.” He is no longer a fair referee,” said Chairman of the Setara Institute Management Board, Hendardi, in an online discussion entitled “MK: Fortress of the Constitution?”, which was held by the Moya Institute (17/10).
Hendardi revealed that the decision 90/PUU-XXI/2023 regarding regional heads or state officials elected through elections being able to nominate themselves as presidential and vice presidential candidates even though they are not yet 40 years old is an accumulation of MK irregularities. This applies accumulatively to various material tests of provisions in statutory regulations. He said one of them was forming new norms, which should not have been done.
“The MK is really promoting constitutional evil or constitutional crimes,” he said.
Hendardi explained that the Constitutional Court, which was previously the difference between the New Order regime and constitutional democracy, is currently no different. If previously authoritarianism was demonstrated directly, now authoritarianism is modified through the judiciary to make it appear democratic. Furthermore, he hopes that constitutional design, especially the Constitutional Court, must be on the agenda in amending the Constitution.