ANALISIS PERUBAHAN STRUKTUR LEMBAGA NEGARA DAN SISTIM PENYELENGGARAAN KEKUASAAN NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR 1945 SEBELUM DAN SESUDAH AMANDEMEN

The amendment to the 1945 Constitution after the 1998 reform is based on the experience of the practice of state administration by the old and new order governments which are often referred to as authoritarian government systems, both overt and covert. The 1945 Constitution indeed gives enormous power to the President, both Sukarno and Suharto. Weaknesses contained in the 1945 Constitution that triggers the birth of the demands of the reformists to make amendments to the 1945 Constitution, especially concerning the power and term of office of the President. It is important to realize that after the 1945 Constitution is amended, it has very basic implications for the structure of the Republic of Indonesia. Before the amendment to the 1945 Constitution the existing state institutions are the People's Consultative Assembly, the President, the People's Representative Council, the Supreme Consultative Council, the Supreme Audit Board and the Supreme Court, whose titles are divided into two, namely the highest state institutions which are embedded in the People's Consultative Assembly, and the other is a high-level state institution. After changes or amendments to the 1945 Constitution from 1999 to 2002 have implications for changes in the structure of existing state institutions and the number becomes more than before the change. The state institutions after the change are explicitly mentioned in the nomenclature such as: the People's Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Regional Representative Council, the Regional People's Representative Council, the President and Vice President, the Minister (Specially the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defense ) Governor, Regent, Mayor, Indonesian National Army, Republic of Indonesia National Police, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, Judicial Commission and Supreme Audit Board. While there are other state institutions whose nomenclature is not mentioned explicitly namely; Advisory Council, Election Commission and Central Bank. As a consequence of the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, the constitutional system adopted has also changed. If before the change to the constitutional system adopted is the cameral union representative system, but after the change into the bicameral system, some even called it tri kameral

Download Full-text

PERAN KOMISI YUDISIAL DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN INDONESIA

DE RECHTSSTAAT ◽

10.30997/jhd.v3i1.710 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 1

Author(s):

Ujang Bahar

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

State Institution ◽

Independent State ◽

State Institutions ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

State Audit ◽

Judicial Authority ◽

Constitutional System ◽

Selection Of

The Judicial Commission (JC) is a new independent state institution established as a product of the reform in the constitutional system and its existence is confirmed in the 1945 Constitution. The Judicial Commission was established following the idea of a one-roof system in the judicial authority. Among the roles and authority of the Judicial Commission are to propose appointment of the Supreme Court justices to the House of Representatives (DPR) and to supervise the conducts of justices/judges in order to maintain their respect, dignity and honor and good conduct. However, in the performance of its duties, the Judicial Commission is not yet as independent as it has been expected. It can be seen from its limited authority. In supervising the conduct of the judges/justices, the Commission is not authorized to impose any sanctions and in the process of selection of candidates for the Supreme Court justices, its authority is limited only at the ratio 3:1. Therefore, the existence of the Commission under the 1945 Constitution becomes unclear, since it is placed under the chapter of the judicial authority, but in reality it does not exercise its judicial authority and only functions as a supervisory agency like the State Audit Board (BPK) instead. Consequently, the Commission only serves as the supporting institution to the Supreme Court, President and the House of Representatives. In order that the Commission becomes truly independent as an institution which supervises the implementation of the judicial power sitting at an equal level with other state institutions, it is necessary to strengthen the institution by making amendments (to re-determine the position of the Judicial Commission) in the 1945 Constitution and other relevant laws and regulations.

Download Full-text

Perubahan Konstitusi dan Reformasi Ketatanegaraan Indonesiaa

JURNAL CITA HUKUM ◽

10.15408/jch.v2i1.1843 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Abu Tamrin

Keyword(s):

Constitutional Reform ◽

State Agency ◽

Advisory Council ◽

New Order ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Political Struggle ◽

Reform Era ◽

State Institutions ◽

The Past ◽

Basic Law

Abstract: Amendment of the Constitution and constitutional reform in Indonesia. The Constitution can be two meanings, namely: a broad sense and narrow sense. Meaning constitution means forming. Constitutional expert in Constitutional Law contains basic law is written. Act of 1945 is a formal document which is the result of political struggle in the past. In the era of the New Order Act of 1945 "sacred" so that the People's Consultative Assembly of Indonesia in the New Order era did not alter the Constitution of 1945. In the reform era to amend the Act of 1945. There was a change of articles of Law 1945. One only Article 1 (2) the first amendment of the Constitution of 1945. Sovereignty is in the people's hands and performed in accordance with the Constitution. There is a state agency that was formed, one of which the Constitutional Court and no state institutions were removed, the Supreme Advisory Council. With the change of the Constitution of 1945, then there was a constitutional reform in Indonesia Abstrak: Perubahan Konstitusi dan Reformasi Ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Menurut K.C. Wheare kata konstitusi dapat menjadi 2 arti yaitu: arti luas dan arti sempit. Menurut Wirjono Projodikoro arti konstitusi berarti membentuk. Baik konstitusi maupun Undang-undang Dasar menurut Pakar Hukum Tata Negara berisi Hukum dasar tertulis. Konstitusi/Undang-undang Dasar 1945 merupakan dokumen formal yang merupakan hasil perjuangan politik bangsa di waktu lampau. Di era orde baru Undang-undang Dasar 1945 “disakralkan” sehingga Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat RI di era orde baru tidak mengubah Undangundang Dasar 1945. Di era reformasi dilakukan perubahan Undang-undang Dasar 1945. Ada perubahan pasal Undang-undang Dasar 1945. Salah satunya Pasal 1 ayat (2) perubahan pertama Undang-undang Dasar 1945.Kedaulatan ada di tangan rakyat dan dilakukan menurut Undang-undang Dasar. Ada lembaga negara yang dibentuk, salah satunya Mahkamah Konstitusi RI dan ada lembaga tinggi negara yang dihapus, yaitu Dewan Pertimbangan Agung RI.Dengan adanya perubahan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945, maka terjadi reformasi ketatanegaraan Indonesia. DOI: 10.15408/jch.v2i1.1843

Download Full-text

KAJIAN NORMATIF MENGENAI HUBUNGAN ANTAR LEMBAGA NEGARA DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA BERDASARKAN UNDANG-UNDANG DASAR TAHUN 1945: SEBELUM DAN SESUDAH AMANDEMEN

Hukum dan Masyarakat Madani ◽

10.26623/humani.v6i1.855 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 6 (1) ◽

pp. 75

Author(s):

Tri Mulyani

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Vice President ◽

The State ◽

State Agency ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

State Institutions ◽

The Republic ◽

The Government ◽

The Relationship

Negara Indonesia adalah Negara hukum, artinya bahwa negara yang menempatkan hukum sebagai dasar kekuasaan negara dan penyelenggaraan kekuasaan tersebut dalam segala bentuknya dilakukan di bawah kekuasaan hukum. Sifat dari negara hukum hanya dapat ditunjukkan apabila alat-alat perlengkapan negara yaitu lembaga-lembaga negara bertindak menurut dan terikat kepada aturan-aturan yang telah ditetapkan. Lembaga Tinggi Negara yang dimaksud dalam penelitian ini adalah Lembaga Tinggi Negara yang nama, fungsi dan kewenanganya dibentuk berdasarkan Konstitusi atau Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 yaitu: Presiden dan Wakil Presiden, Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, Mahkamah Agung, Mahkamah Konstitusi, dan Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan. Sehubungan dengan dasar pembentukan Lembaga Tinggi Negara adalah Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, dan telah mengalami amandemen 4 kali maka struktur dan hubungan mereka dalam menjalakan tugas pemerintahan dari sebelum dan sesudah amandemen tentunya juga mengalami perubahan. Dengan pendekatan yuridis normatif, dan uraian yang diskriptif analisis, ditemukan jawaban bahwa struktur lembaga negara beserta hubungan diantara lembaga negara telah mengalami pergeseran setelah dilakukan amandemen. Pada dasarnya hubungan diantara lembaga negara tidak banyak mengalami perubahan. Namun perubahan itu justru tampak dalam struktur lembaga negaranya. Sebelum amandemen struktur lembaga negara terdiri dari MPR sebagai lembaga tertinggi, Presiden, DPR, DPA, BPK dan MA. Namun setelah dilakukan amandemen lembaga negara berkembang yaitu MPR, DPR, DPD, Presiden, MA, MK, dan BPK. Perbedaanya ada dipoint pengapusan istilah lembaga tertinggi, sehingga semua menjadi lembaga tinggi negara. Indonesia is a country of law, meaning that the country as the law is the basis of state power and the implementation of the power in all its forms is done under the rule of law. The nature of the state law can only be shown if the scientific equipment is state state institutions and bound to act according to the rules that have been set. State Agency referred to in this research is the State Agency name, function and an arbitrary set up under the Constitution or the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, namely: President and Vice-President, People's Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, The Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, and the Supreme Audit Agency. In connection with establishing the State Agency is the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, and has undergone amendments 4 times the structures and their relationship to run the task of the government before and after the amendment would also change. With normative juridical approach, and a description of the descriptive analysis, found the answer that the structure of state institutions as well as the relationship between the state institutions have experienced a shift after the amendment. Basically the relationship between the state institutions has not changed much. But it is precisely looked into the institutional structure of the country. Prior to the amendment of the structure of state institutions consist of the Assembly as the highest institution, President, Parliament, DPA, BPK and MA. However, after the amendment of the developing state institutions, namely the MPR, DPR, DPD, President, Supreme Court, Constitutional Court, and the CPC. No difference dipoint term elimination highest institution, so all became state institutions.

Download Full-text

HAK ANGKET DPR VS KEBERADAAN KPK RI DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN INDONESIA

to-ra ◽

10.33541/tora.v3i2.1153 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. 558

Author(s):

Tomson Situmeang

Keyword(s):

Government Policy ◽

State Institution ◽

The State ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

State Institutions ◽

Pros And Cons ◽

The Law ◽

Constitutional System

Abstract Indonesia is a country that is limited by the constitution, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution. What is carried out by the executive, legislative, and judicial institutions with different roles, functions and tasks that do not intervene with each other, but are interconnected and intersecting. For example, the DPR Questionnaire Rights to the KPK raises pros and cons, because there are those who think that the KPK cannot be submitted to a questionnaire, but there are those who think that the KPK can also be asked for a questionnaire by the DPR. Questionnaire rights are one of the rights owned by the DPR in carrying out the supervisory function by conducting an investigation of the implementation of a law and/or government policy relating to important, strategic, and broad impacts on the life of the community, nation and state that are allegedly contradictory with the law. KPK is a state institution formed based on the Law so that it is an Organ of Law, but that does not mean that the state institution has no legal or unconstitutional position. KPK is not explicitly mentioned in the 1945 Constitution, but both have constitutional importance in the constitutional system, and even the Constitutional Court states that the term state institution is not always mentioned in the 1945 Constitution, but also formed on the basis of orders from regulations under the constitution. Thus the existence of the KPK as an institution tasked with eradicating corruption is not outside the constitutional system, but instead is placed constitutionally and acknowledged its existence in the constitutional system as one of the state institutions. Keywords: DPR, Hak Angket, KPK

Download Full-text

KEDUDUKAN KOMISI PEMBERANTASAN KORUPSI DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN INDONESIA

Lex Librum : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum ◽

10.46839/lljih.v7i2.384 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 163

Author(s):

Mahesa Rannie

Keyword(s):

Welfare State ◽

House Of Representatives ◽

State Institution ◽

Executive Power ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Independent State ◽

State Institutions ◽

The Law ◽

Constitutional System ◽

The Right

Abstrak Kedudukan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia memang seringkali diperdebatkan, hal ini terbukti dengan Putusan-Putusan MK yang berubah-ubah. Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam putusannya pernah beberapa kali memutuskan berbeda tentang kedudukan KPK ini dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Mahkamah Konstitusi pernah memutuskan KPK merupakan lembaga negara independen di luar ranah kekuasaan eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif. Pernah pula memutuskan bahwa KPK merupakan eksekutif dilihat dari kewenangannya. Putusan-putusan MK ini tentu saja membawa pengaruh terhadap undang-undang KPK. Revisi undang-undang KPK terbaru, yaitu Undang-Undang Nomor 19 Tahun 2019 menyatakan KPK masuk dalam ranah kekuasaan eksekutif sehingga dengan demikian KPK dapat menjadi objek hak angket Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR). Hal demikian tentu saja menambah panjang perdebatan di kalangan ahli hukum dengan argumentasinya masing-masing. Dari argumentasi-argumentasi tersebut penulis menganggap KPK adalah lembaga negara independen di luar struktur organ negara yang utama. Hal ini sejalan dengan theory the new separation of power sebagai konsekuensi dari teori negara kesejahteraan (welfare state) di era abad modern ini. Sebagai lembaga negara independen yang kedudukannya tidak sekuat lembaga negara utama dalam ranah kekuasaan eksekutif, legislatif, dan yudikatif tentu saja KPK bisa dibubarkan jika lembaga yang selama ini sebetulnya mempunyai wewenang kuat untuk melaksanakan penegakan hukum dalam rangka pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi (Kepolisian dan Kejaksaan) mampu berbenah diri. Selama belum mampu berbenah maka wewenang tersebut bisa dilaksanakan oleh KPK yang keberadaannya sampai saat ini masih tetap diperlukan dalam rangka pemberantasan tindak pidana korupsi di Indonesia. Kata kunci: Kedudukan KPK, Sistem Ketatanegaraan, Indonesia Abstract The position of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in the constitutional system of Indonesia is often debated. This is evidenced by the inconsistent decisions of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court has ever made different decisions several times regarding the position of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in the constitutional system of Indonesia. The Constitutional Court once decided that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) was an independent state institution outside the realm of executive, legislative and judicial powers. It has also decided that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is an executive body in terms of its authority. These inconsistent decisions of the Constitutional Court, of course, have an influence on the law of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The latest revision of the law of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), namely the Law Number 19 of 2019 states that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is classified to be in the realm of executive power so that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) can become the object of the right to inquiry by the House of Representatives (DPR). This situation, of course, adds to the length of debate among legal experts with their respective arguments. Based on these arguments, the writer considers that the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is an independent state institution outside the main state organ structure. This is in line with the theory of the new separation of power as a consequence of the theory of the welfare state in this modern era. As an independent state institution whose position is not as strong as the main state institutions in the realm of executive, legislative and judicial powers, of course, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) can be dissolved if the institutions that actually have strong authority to carry out law enforcement in the context of eradicating criminal acts of corruption (Police and Prosecutors) are able to empower themselves to execute their authority. However, if those institutions have not been able to execute their authority, this authority can be exercised by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), whose existence is still needed in the context of eradicating criminal acts of corruption in Indonesia.

Download Full-text

REDISTRIBUSI KEKUASAAN NEGARA DAN HUBUNGAN ANTAR LEMBAGA NEGARA DI INDONESIA

PROGRESIF: Jurnal Hukum ◽

10.33019/progresif.v12i1.957 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 2056-2082

Author(s):

Rahmat Robuwan

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

The State ◽

State Agency ◽

Advisory Council ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

State Agencies ◽

State Institutions ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Distribution Of Power ◽

The Relationship

The relationship between state agencies basically can not be separated from the system used by the state government itself. Indonesia as a country that adopts a presidential government certainly has a pattern of distribution of power, although theoretically the presidential government system power state agency separate (separation of power), but the relationship between institutions is not a relative. The mechanism of checks and balances of power destribusi state institutions. Before the amendment, the agency is the State Supreme People's Representative Council (DPR), the President, the Supreme Audit Agency CPC, the Supreme Advisory Council (DPA) and the Supreme Court with the vertical power distribution. Following the amendment to the state institutions teridir of the President, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), the Supreme Court (MA), and the Constitutional Court (MK) with distribution horizontal power - functional. The distribution of power still has a problem among others, the discontinuity in the distribution of state agencies ranging from the overlapping powers of the president in participating deliberating the bill with the House, the confusion related to the division between the authority of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court in the perspective of the state administration, the inconsistency of the parliamentary system that it wants to apply and the lack of authority DPD in parliament.

Download Full-text

MPR DALAM SISTEM KETATANEGARAAN INDONESIA (STUDI KOMPARATIF ANTARA SEBELUM DAN SESUDAH PERUBAHAN UUD 1945)

VYAVAHARA DUTA ◽

10.25078/vd.v16i1.1940 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. 91

Author(s):

I Wayan Eka Santika ◽

I Gede Sujana

Keyword(s):

House Of Representatives ◽

State Institution ◽

Vice President ◽

State Institutions ◽

Library Research ◽

The People ◽

State Administration ◽

Before And After ◽

Election System ◽

Constitutional System

The purpose of this research was to determine the People's Consultative Assembly in the Indonesian constitutional system. This research was a type of library research which is descriptive analytic through a qualitative approach that is based on comparative studies. The results of this research indicated that there are fundamental differences between the People's Consultative Assembly before and after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution. The differences included (1) the change in the position of the People's Consultative Assembly from the highest state institution to a state institution that is equal to other state institutions, (2) changes in the membership structure of the People's Consultative Assembly from those previously consisted of House of Representatives, Group Envoys and Regional Representatives, then became members of the House of Representatives and Regional Representative Board members, (3) the policy to appoint People's Consultative Assembly members was replaced by an election system, (4) the People's Consultative Assembly no longer stipulates the Broad Outlines of the Nation's Direction along with filling the position of President through participation the people directly in the election, (5) limitation of the People's Consultative Assembly's authority in amending the 1945 Constitution, (6) the inauguration of the President and / or Vice President in normal and abnormal conditions, (8) the authority of the People's Consultative Assembly to dismiss the President and / or Vice President must be through a forum previlegiatum.Keywords: People's Consultative Assembly, State Administration, Amendment to the 1945 Constitution.

Download Full-text

KEWENANGAN BADAN PENGAWAS PEMILU DALAM PENANGANAN PELANGGARAN ADMINISTRASI DITINJAU DARI PERSPEKTIF SISTEM PERADILAN INDONESIA

Audito Comparative Law Journal (ACLJ) ◽

10.22219/aclj.v2i2.16207 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 74-85

Author(s):

Alasman Mpesau

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Supervisory Board ◽

Electoral System ◽

General Election ◽

Judicial Power ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

State Institutions ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

Religious Courts

In the General Election and Regional Head Election Law, the Election Supervisory Board (Bawaslu) has the authority supervisory to each Election stages, it is the center for law enforcement activities of the Election (Sentra Gakkumdu) to criminal acts and carrying out the judicial functions for investigating, examining, and decided on administrative disputes of General Election and Regional Head Election. With the Bawaslu’s authority then placed as a super-body institution in the ranks of the Election Management Body, due to its essential role in building a clean and credible electoral system, it also has potential for abuse of power within it. In Law no. 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power has defined state institutions that have the authority to administrate judicial functions. These are the Supreme Court and Judicial Bodies that under its lines of general court, Religious Courts, Military Courts, Administrative Court (PTUN) and the Constitutional Court. The research method is normative juridical, that focuses on the analysis of the laws and regulations on General Election, Regional Head Elections and the Law on Judicial Power. The analytical tool is descriptive analysis, by describing the main issues, an analysis is carried out that was supported by case-approach related to the research. The study concludes that Bawaslu in carrying out judicial functions in its position as a semi-judicial institution has not a hierarchical relationship to the Supreme Court (MA) and the Constitutional Court (MK); however, what does exist is functional relationship.

Download Full-text

The constitutional court function of the Indonesian state concerning system for the implementation impeachment of the president and/or vice president

Jurnal Hukum Volkgeist ◽

10.35326/volkgeist.v4i2.496 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. 118-127

Author(s):

H Muhamad Rezky Pahlawan MP

Keyword(s):

House Of Representatives ◽

Vice President ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

History Of ◽

Three Stages ◽

The Republic ◽

Constitutional System

Impeachment is an accusation or indictment of the President or another country's high officials from his position. Impeachment is not new in the history of Indonesian constitution, but the change in the Constitution has caused a change in the constitutional system as well as related to the mechanism of the dismissal of the President and / or Vice President. how is the Impeachment reviewed globally, the history of impeachment in Indonesia and the implementation of impeachment in other countries, the impeachment process of the president according to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The process of impeachment in Indonesia after changing the constitution goes through three stages, namely impeachment in the House of Representatives, the Court The Constitution, and the People's Consultative Assembly. Keywords: Impeachment, Constitutional Court, Government

Download Full-text

ANALISIS PENYELESIAN SENGKETA INTERNAL LEMBAGA NEGARA (STUDI KASUS PELANTIKAN PIMPINAN DEWAN PERWAKILAN DAERAH REPUBLIK INDONESIA PERIODE 2017-2019)

Jurnal Hukum Adigama ◽

10.24912/adigama.v1i1.2149 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 1 (1) ◽

pp. 364

Author(s):

Yanzah Bagas Nugraha ◽

Dwi Andayani Budisetyowati

Keyword(s):

Supreme Court ◽

State Institution ◽

The State ◽

The Body ◽

Internal Conflict ◽

Constitutional Court ◽

Leadership Tenure ◽

The People ◽

The Supreme Court ◽

The Republic

The establishment of the Regional Representative Council of the Republic of Indonesia so called Dewan Perwakilan Daerah (DPD-RI) at least has two objectives. The first is to enhance justice for the people in the region. Secondly, to expanding and increasing the participation of local communities in national life. The process to form this state institution is done by amending the 3rd amendment of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic Indonesia. However, in doing that amendment there was an internal conflict within the body of DPD-RI involving the old and the new leaders of this institution last year. The length of leadership tenure which was initially made 5 years was amended to became 2.5 years. The different length of leadership tenure was then canceled by the Supreme Court and it was decided to be the same as other institution such as The People’s Consultative Assembly and The House of Representative in that the leadership tenure should be in accordance with the electoral cycle of 5 years. However, although the regulation of DPD-RI has been canceled, the Supreme Court keeps sending its representative to guide the oath of position of the new DPD-RI leadership. The only regulation that has been introduced by the state was regulation toward conflict between state institutions and this conflict can merely be resolved by the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there is an urgent need for the state to seek solution to solve this problem to prevent the same thing happened to other state institution in the future.

Download Full-text