UNAIR NEWS – Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) has been in the headlines due to the drafting of Pancasila Ideology Guidelines (HIP) bill. The objective of the drafting is still questioned by many, however many experts it is aimed to be the legal foundation of the guidelines to live by Pancasila core values.
Simultaneously, there are growing criticisms from the public and academics. The legal product draft is considered not important to be discussed amid Covid-19 pandemic which is currently a major problem for the Indonesian government. Academics also accuse many unusual things in the substance of the articles. In fact, the norm in the HIP Bill was also deemed leading to potential re-emergence of authoritarianism such as in the new order.
UNAIR Administrative Law expert, Dr. Suparto Wijoyo also conveyed his criticism. In the Webinar: Reviewing HIP Bill, he said that it brought back the ideological debate which should not have been discussed at this time. In his material, Suparto explained the history of Pancasila with the conclusion that Pancasila has gone through various versions but the version of Pancasila which is now recognized by Indonesia is the version listed in the Preamble of 1945 NRI Constitution.
“Everything is clearly regulated in the MPR Decree No. III / MPR / 2000 that the Pancasila listed in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is the source of all legal sources. So it can be concluded that all positive law in Indonesia is a translation of Pancasila values. So what is the use of the HIP Bill as an elaboration of Pancasila values ” Suparto said.
Sharia Business Law Specialist, Dr. Prawitra Thalib also found that the substance of HIP Bill did not actually clarify the Pancasila norms, but instead creating confusion. She pointed out that the irrelevant norms of Trisila and Ekasila which were actually only embryos from Pancasila were raised again in the Bill. HIP Bill also stipulates that the main joint of Pancasila is social justice, whereas Prawitra believes that the main joint of Pancasila is not only social justice, but all five precepts of Pancasila itself, nothing is more fundamental than the others.
“Various elaborations related to the philosophy of Pancasila in the bill in my opinion will actually narrow the interpretation of Pancasila as a source of all legal sources. Pancasila should have multi-interpretation, not single intepretation, “explained Prawitra.
Both legal academics stated that this bill did not need to be discussed in House of Representatives’ session and did not have the urgency to be discussed in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic which should be a priority for the executive and legislative branches.
Dr. Suparto Wijoyo and Dr. Prawitra Thalib revealed their materials at Webinar: Reviewing HIP Bill held by BEM FH UNAIR via Google Meet on Friday afternoon, June 20, 2020.
Author: Pradnya Wicaksana
Editor: Khefti Al Mawalia
