Arya News - Talks on the proposed state policy outlines are widely seen as echoing the long-defunct state policy guidelines used under the authoritarian New Order era of the late president Soeharto, who is also President Prabowo’s former father-in-law.
JAKARTA – Constitutional experts have pushed back against efforts to revive long-defunct state policy guidelines, warning that the proposal risks restoring the total political authority that the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) had during the New Order era.
Talks on the proposed state policy outlines (PPHN), a long-term national development framework intended to guide policymaking across successive presidential administrations, continued to resurface after MPR leaders presented President Prabowo Subianto with the latest draft earlier this month.
The plan gained fresh attention in the past few days, as MPR deputy speaker Eddy Soeparno said on the sidelines of the annual MPR plenary session last Friday that discussions were still ongoing following the meeting with Prabowo. Eddy said the MPR would conduct more studies to find the most suitable legal avenue for adopting the PPHN from three options they are currently considering: through a constitutional amendment, an MPR decree or legislation passed by the House of Representatives.
The PPHN are widely seen as echoing the long-defunct state policy guidelines (GBHN) used under the authoritarian New Order era of the late president Soeharto, Prabowo’s former father-in-law. Before it was removed following Soeharto’s fall in 1998, the MPR was the country’s highest state institution and had the authority to appoint the president.
Constitutional experts have now grown more vocal against the plan, questioning its necessity and warning that giving the PPHN binding force could reverse democratic principles established in Indonesia’s post-Reform constitutional system.
“We do not need the PPHN to become a development planning document since we already have the RPJP and RPJMN,” Yance Arizona, a constitutional law lecturer at Gadjah Mada University, told The Jakarta Post on Monday, referring to existing long-term and medium-term development plans.
Yance noted that the government’s problem was not only a lack of planning across presidencies but inconsistent implementation, citing flagship programs including free nutritious meals, Red and White cooperatives and food estates as examples of policies executed without adequate planning.
“If the way the government works does not change, then the PPHN will be futile,” Yance said.
Constitutional law expert Feri Amsari feared that the proposal might snowball into wider constitutional changes, including reinstating the MPR’s status as the nation’s highest authority and restoring its long-removed power to appoint the president.
“The MPR’s only three duties are to amend and establish the Constitution, inaugurate the president and vice president, and dismiss the president,” Feri said. “If another duty is added, it is clear that the MPR would violate constitutional principles.”
Susi Dwi Harijanti of Padjadjaran University was more cautious, saying the substance and legal basis of the proposal should first be clarified and made public before its implications can be assessed.
“The government should be able to address the public’s concern of hidden agenda, including the extension of the presidential term beyond the established two terms through amending the Constitution, which would be extremely dangerous,” Susi said.
As a possible alternative, she pointed to Brazil, where similar development principles are implemented through a multiyear planning law that could provide binding policy planning without restoring the MPR’s old position as the supreme state institution.
“Such a system would have binding force for presidential candidates to provide a legal basis for their future programs, unlike the lack thereof that we now see in the free nutritious meals, for example,” Susi said.