The House of Representatives has passed a controversial bill on the Supreme Court, defying opposition from two factions over a much-decried extension of the retirement age of justices to 70 years.

Eight of 10 factions in the House endorsed the extension of the retirement age from 65 years -- as stipulated in the existing law -- to 70 years.

The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) strongly rejected the idea, sticking to its proposal that the retirement age remain at 65 years.

The United Development Party (PPP) also objected to the extension, calling instead for a compromise of 67 years.

PDI-P faction chairman Tjahjo Kumolo lambasted House speaker Agung Laksono for banging his gavel to pass the new bill without giving dissenting parties the opportunity for a final lobby in a plenary session.

"We'll send a letter of protest to (Agung) for this unfair decision. It clearly violates the House's formal mechanism. Even if only one faction rejects a bill, there should still be another procedure open, like lobbying or voting," Tjahjo said after the plenary meeting.

"It has become a habit within the House to pass bills without considering protests."

PPP faction head Lukman Hakim Saefuddin expressed similar regret over Agung's "ignorant" move.

"We are dissatisfied because (Agung) did not take a fair look at my party's proposal for a retirement age of 67 years. But this will allow the public to judge the quality of the law," he said.

In response to the criticism, Agung said he had agreed to immediately pass the bill because the majority of factions had approved of it.

"I only did what the majority wanted," he whined, adding it was up to the PDI-P and the PPP to protest or report him to the House's disciplinary council.

PDI-P legislator Gayus Lumbuun said his party was amenable to the compromise offered by the PPP.

"We can't agree to more than (67 years) because we want to stick to our commitment of boosting reform and regeneration within the Supreme Court," he said.

"Agreeing to a retirement age of 70 years would be like supporting the status quo within the court, which all we know has failed to show satisfactory performance."

The PDI-P also criticized another contentious article in the law, which stipulates the money generated from court cases does not require an audit by the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK).

Article 81 of the law states because individuals have to pay court fees themselves, the money could be categorized as non-tax revenue, thus a BPK audit was not required.

Gayus said this stipulation would endanger transparency in the judiciary system by keeping alive the court's "mafia" practices.

Another sticking point concerns the authority to supervise the judiciary system, which places the Supreme Court as the country's highest legal authority, above the Judicial Commission.

The bill only allows the commission to supervise justices, not the trial process.

Critics say such an internal supervision system will tarnish the spirit of reform within the Supreme Court.

Popular

Indonesia not affected by Southeast Asia-wide heat wave: BMKG

Residents fear for safety as Mount Ruang volcano erupts

In defense of Indonesian democracy