Should the Fifth Amendment 1945 THE CONTENTS ( PART 1 )

THREE CHANGES ON CASH Constitution
Title papers by the Committee formulated in the form of questions like the above are very relevant to the discourse and political movements that exist today. Because until now the controversy around the 1945 changes is still going to the mapped outline of the three groups or currents. First, the current group or who want to go back to the 1945 original; Second, groups or who want to maintain the current constitution of the current amendment and; Third, the current group or who want to make any changes or further amendments in the Convention which is called the Fifth Amendment .
The first flow is driven or followed by several prominent retired military, especially some who formerly had been sworn to be loyal Sapta Margais on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. Supporting this flow is not much but still there, even at the seminar held by the Member Watimpres April 3, 2008 ago still deploring the 1945 changes. The reason this current followers the 1945 changes have been excessive, betrayed the mandate and the work of the founder or founding people, emotionally, in a hurry, and do not absorb society or socialized aspirsi proportionately.
The second flow is generally followed by (the members) parties that have seats in the House of Representatives and the dominant People's Consultative Assembly, especially those who used to be a member of the Ad Hoc Pantia I menggodog Assembly who served the 1945 change from 1999 until 2002. According to further changes that they need not be done because the results of the current amendment is absorbed and compromise all the growing aspirations of the community when it dalamm. According to realize that they must make changes to the Constitution that would drain an enormous energy and whatever the outcome there will be a mepersoalkan also; changed again too there would later be questioned on the results. Efforts to change the Constitution again potentially provoke political conflict that could disrupt our concentration of effort or hold government to improve the lot of the people. So for this current is used to fill an important implement the 1945 amendments of the best. It should be mentioned also that the strength of the discourse further changes in society, although many members of the MPR / DPR is not agreed yet on the political parties are saying that the changes in the 1945 follow-up can be done but its timing is not right if it is done before the year 2009.
The third flow is the most powerful currents that are supported by almost all legal scholars and political scientists at universities, institutions of Constitutional studies, NGO activists and Constitutional law, members of the Constitutional Commission, and several major organizations. The reason advanced by the need to change this current followers because in fact the 1945 hasilperubahan does contain some weaknesses that must be repaired as reasonable demands.
Current attitudes of differences that can be expressed openly without fear of reprisals by the authorities, such as ekspressi made by followers of the three currents, must be recorded as a separate progress in democratic life after such a change on the 1945 Constitution. We can not be questioned thought the current Constitution (yalni 1945) on the two-order before the reform of the Old Order (1959-1967) and New Order (1967-1998). In the long period that the 1945 diberhalakan such a way that can not be questioned.

NEED FOR SECONDARY Constitution's Amendment
Own speakers agreed that the third current need for change or further amendment of the 1945 amendments to the results remain important to note that the 1945 Constitution of the changes have now been brought progress in our constitutional life.
Undeniably, has achieved much progress in our constitutional life based on the results of the 1945 amendments. Life of our nation far more democratic. No more censorship of the press, let alone pembreidelan of the press, the process of running a democratic election, the government could no longer be authoritative because it is always controlled by the press, public, and political institutions of the other.
Among those who have given special note of the progress of our constitution is the existence and achievements of the Constitutional Court (MK) as a new judicial institution. In the past a lot of that Act made unilaterally by the government (and the House only made a kind of rubber stamp) can be canceled without indicated strong though it violates the Constitution. Changes to the Law on the troubled past can only be done through a legislative review of the practice is largely determined by the government. Even the case of changes in Broadcasting Bill 1997 to the hard black stains removed from the historical journey of our legislation. As it was discussed the Bill on Broadcasting and debated for a long time in the Parliament until the Government and the Parliament finally agreed to its enactment. But once submitted to the President for signature and enactment were the President refused and asked for discussion back to changed some of its contents. It is this that encourages the emergence of Article 20 paragraph (5) in the 1945 amendments to the present results.
With all of the Constitutional Court Act which was considered contrary to the Constitution may be requested a judicial review (judicial review) for the declared contradictory to the 1945 or unconstitutional, so do not have binding legal force. It may be argued that the Court has appeared as an independent state institution and quite productive issued rulings that strongly support for the life of a democratic constitution.
Just imagine, in not yet reached the age of five years (established in August 2003) the Court has done and deciding test (judicial review) of the Constitution Act by more than 140 times. Act of 63 tested were numbered Act, but many of the Act which tested more than once (there was even tested to seven times, namely the law on KPK) with the test materials vary. Indeed of the many decisions of the Constitutional Court there are a few (about four or five) a controversial decision because it was considered beyond the limits of authority and violation of, or entered into the legislative sphere. Speakers including the hard criticize these realities. But it must be remembered that the existence of four or five of the controversial verdict was very small compared to the overall verdict berjunlah more than 140 convictions. In addition it must be remembered also that a controversial verdict was not necessarily wrong.

The first objection to the current
As mentioned above with the current speakers who want change back the 1945 amendment to counter the arguments against the two other currents of the stream you want to go back to the 1945 original or the current amendment to retain the existing results today.
Against the current to return to the 1945 Constitution states that the speaker does not really change (1999-2002) that has betrayed the mandate and the political consensus of the founding fathers of the Constitution. Before the Constitution was enacted in 1945 on August 18, 1945 PPKI Chairman Sukarno himself said that the 1945 Constitution will be ratified Constitution when it was lightning, emergency and temporary needs to be improved or changed again when the atmosphere was conducive. Encouragement was untukmengubah returned by the founding fathers also set forth in the 1945 Constitution itself that is in the Additional Rules which states:

(1) Within six months after the last war Greater East Asia, President of Indonesia set up and organize all the things stipulated in this Constitution.
(2) Within six months after the People's Consultative Assembly was formed, the Panel was convened to establish the Constitution.

Fill Bung Karno's speech on August 18, 1945 and Rules The transition was certainly encourage changes to the 1945 Constitution by the elected representatives are elected by popular vote if the atmosphere was conducive. Indeed the term "set the Constitution" are listed at the end of the sentence in paragraph (2) Transitional rule that could be interpreted "set back" but the implication as to be less logical, because if just the 1945 enactment is done by PPKI was very strong and did not need setting back by the Assembly if it wants to remain in place. Thus the content of Bung Karno's speech and the provisions of the Additional Rules are encourage changes for 1945 (the original), and therefore the changes made (1999-2002) by the Assembly is not a betrayal of its founding agreement, let alone modus vivendi or agreement that is luhurnya " The opening of "the Constitution which includes the Pancasila as the basic state was not changed.
Not true also to say that the results of the 1945 amendments (1999-2002) made in a hurry and are not socialized to absorb the aspirations and materials in a comprehensive manner. In fact both time and agenda of the changes already made much longer and more comprehensive than that conducted by the founding people.
Even if mathematically calculated the 1945 changes in 1999-2002 period longer time to 12-fold when compared with the original creation. So can not say it as a job change in a hurry. The original 1945 only addressed in the trial of intermittent for about 2 months and 3 weeks (31 May to 18 August 1945) with a long 12-day trial only the Plenary Session I BPUPKI for 4 days (May 29-June 1 ), Plenary Session II BPUPKI 7 days (10-16 July 1945), Plenary Session PPKI discuss and ratify the 1945 Constitution for 1 day (August 18, 1945). There is also an additional 1 day of the 9th session of the Committee reported as Sukarno trial procedures that do not meet the formalitet Sittings of June 22, 1945 that gave birth to the Jakarta Charter.

While the 1945 results amademen discussed during the 2 years 10 months or 34 months (October 10, 1999 to 10 August 2002) with a discussion of the almost without halting. The discussion during the 34 months that includes a plenary session and the sessions of the Assembly I PAH out in August and the absorption of aspiration into various areas and college campuses, even to some countries.
So the process involves amanndemen 1999-2002 was a very comprehensive thinking. That there is no ordinary satisfaction that only because the amendment is a political agreement of the various desires of aggregating and politically filtered. Whatever the results of the determination and the amendments, which will be used or dating, there are not satisfied because the people were not monolithic. The important aggregation and establishment of democratic and through the proper procedure or constitutional. If you want to wait for all the people there will never be satisfied as well as changes in the determination of the Constitution.
There is also the speaker's view was denied by saying that in fact the founding fathers not only convene within 12 days 81 days because they are already thinking about it since 1928 when the Youth Oath was announced. But this argument was difficult to accept because of the thought that had emerged since 1928 are still scattered, there was no evidence that there is unity of the idea to then poured in a constitution which became the 1945 original was. If that way of thinking can be accepted then said that efforts to amend the 1945 Constitution was far longer, even to amend any thoughts already begun on the day of the 1945 Constitution itself was ratified on August 18, 1945. This is evident from Sukarno's speech on that day and the contents of the 1945 Rules Supplement dikemuakan as above. Besides the 1945 change in practice was already done before through three months of independent Indonesia conducted through a Notice of No exit. X on October 16, 1945.
In addition we have a clear historical record that fact during the application of the original 1945 constitution of life we never gave birth to a democratic government. Is because the system is not strictly limit the power of the mechanism of checks and balances. 1945 Constitution of the original `more faith in the spirit of man, but the spirit of man can be co-opted by the corrupt tendencies of power as Lord Acton said that power tends to corrupt.
Even so speakers should be emphasized also that the original 1945 Constitution is a product of a very good resultante at the time made; he Poleksosbud needs at the time and could be used as a political platform and ketatanegaraa clean and immoral for the state at the time. Match it became necessary because at that time the founders of our country and politicians are still very idealistic, tempered statesman, challenges or temptations facing materials that do not have much too much to be contested, and at that time the leaders of our country does have the spirit of developing countries because of new clean escape from the corrupt colonial government. Historian Taufik Abdullah has said that the founders of our country is very straight and innocent as ever in power or have not always ruled by a colonial government that did not know the dangers of power that's why they made the Constitution that more people believe in the spirit than to the strict constitutional system.
Therefore the current needs are far different, the challenge also is far more complex, human-human nature is not like before the original 1945 Constitution that need to be changed as needed.

Refutation of the second flow
Speakers also reject the view that the current 1945 Constitution requires that the amendment be maintained as it is by reason of such change has taken up and through the political work that was exhausting. Especially when it is said that efforts to make changes that will disrupt the activities of government to think about the fate of the people to get out of slump (especially) economy. It must be remembered that the process of change can be done in parallel (simultaneously) with the daily administration without disturbing each other because they both have different field which has been maintained by different agencies.
The most basic reason of the rejection of the current speaker on this second view is the fact that the Constitution is, wherever and whenever, is resultante agreed based on the needs of the time made. As stated by KC Wheare in his book The Modern Constitutions resultante or constitution is a product based on the consensus of the manufacturer specific Poleksosbud situation so that if the poleksosbudnya changed his resultante can also be changed. Therefore, the average change in the constitution of the world's longest running after 30 years applies. There was no constitution which does not change.
Indeed the 1945 Constitution of the current changes must be accepted as a fact that has brought progress to the life of our constitution. From the point of the contents of the amendment of the Constitution was far more advanced and bring progress to our constitutional life. Although it must be admitted that the change is still needed both about the substance or structure or sistematikanya. From the point of the structure or systemization of the 1945 Constitution was not in harmony hasilperubahan, like the body size of the hand or foot is not balanced. This is a result only of our political choices when it will amend the 1945 Constitution that one of them to make changes to the way Addendum.
In this connection it must be remembered also that the contents of the constitution is a political choice, not about the "right" or "wrong" and not about "good" or "bad." It's all wrong and bad are relative, depending on the view and interests respective political. But apart from questions of "good-bad" and "right-wrong" constitutions that have been defined legally binding and must be implemented. If the rules of science in usul fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) are valid arguments "hukmul haakim yarfa'ul khilaaf," the government's decision (the competent authorities) to end the controversy about right or wrong and good or bad about that should be implemented. Because the contents of the Constitution was a political choice of the effort to change the constitution is not necessarily mean that the existing wrong or bad. The subject of constitutional reform efforts that are making a political agreement (resultante) just because there are new developments, or because there are important things are missing or because of any problems (kekuarangan) on existing constitutions or are valid. Can be exemplified by some of the problems and offer alternative solutions which now appears, as below.

Resultante to reposition the DPD
The presence of the DPD for this bet is problematic and a waste of constitutional because the functions, rights, and authorities are not binding. So naturally, if the idea to look for new resultante to reposition the DPD is constitutionally in our constitutional system.
Currently there are adamant to say that the position and function of the DPD does not need to be changed because since the beginning of the DPD is not in-design as the Senate but the current design as a continuation of the Regional Representatives in the past. As an option resultante positioning the Assembly when it is such a DPD is not wrong, because in the past, regional representatives were barely functioning, at least far below the function and authority given to the current DPD. So the position, function, and authority of the DPD is now much go too far bakalnya own genesis of regional representatives who had existed before the Constitution was amended in 1945.
But if that's the reason of course is too trivial. Because if we can not proportional to question by asking: What is wrong if we make a new resultante about DPD design? Is not it just depends on our agreement? Indeed such questions can be answered with a question back: What is the need to create a new design for the DPD? Of course, no one of the two opposing these questions. But as a political choice that speakers at today DPD needs to be repositioned to be more productive, democratic and not cause administrative waste. These institutions must be strengthened in order to become part of the legislative though limited in certain things. There are no restrictions at all to make such resultante.
Some say that DPD is a strong positioning and be part of the legislature, let alone comparable to the House as the Senate in the bicameral system, is not in accordance with the design theory of the unitary state that was agreed as a form of our country. This view is not scientifically acceptable due to two reasons:
First, the state administration system contained in the constitution of a country that is a result that makes kesepakan nation without having to join or not join the theory of specific theories and systems in other countries. Whatever is stated in the constitution, that is true. So we can make design based on our political agreement without having to join or not join a theory of political and constitutional expert and without having to join or not join the system prevailing in other countries.
Second, in fact there is no single standard theory about the connection between bicameral system with state of the fact that many countries that embrace unity bicameral or unicameral