egal experts have criticized the House of Representatives for not providing proper justification for a plan to amend the 2011 Constitutional Court Law, arguing lawmakers have failed to follow correct legislative procedures.
The draft bill circulated publicly since April proposes extending the retirement age for Constitutional Court justices from 60 years to 70 and raising the minimum age from 47 years to 60.
If passed, the bill would also scrap a provision stipulating that Constitutional Court justices can serve a maximum of two five-year terms.
Regarding supervision, the amendments include decreasing the number of members in the court’s honorary assembly – a body that oversees compliance with the code of ethics – from five to two.
The list of proposals has sparked criticism in legal circles.
Lawmakers have not been forthcoming about the grounds for the proposed amendments, and given the circumstances, the changes are hardly relevant to any reform agenda, said constitutional law expert Susi Dwi Haryanti of Padjadjaran University in Bandung, West Java.
Without a solid argument or an academic review to back up the proposals, Susi believed the bill could have been the product of maladministration.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.