Should the Fifth Amendment 1945 THE CONTENTS ( part III ) )

From the description in my previous post which was the title Should the Fifth Amendment 1945 THE CONTENTS (part I and part II) it is clear that further amendments to the 1945 results of the current changes it was necessary. The need for further amendment was not because the current one, because as a political choice that the contents of the Constitution is not related to a matter of right or wrong and not related to good or bad about it for two reasons:
First, because there are new developments requiring new resultante. Included in these reasons for Poleksosbud changes in society and for the implementation of the existing content of the Constitution created a new problem that was not expected when the problem is that the substance of the constitution can only be corrected through constitutional amendments.
Second, because there are issues that had been missed to be regulated in the constitution when such issues can only be regulated in the constitution (as the constitution of charge) either as a stand-alone issue or because they have to be a series of constitutional provisions that already exist.
Tdi Although the description above it seems clear that there is a need for further amending the 1945 Constitution, but there must be a first diperioritaskan the changes to the way (procedures) which regulated changes in Article 37 of the 1945 Constitution was the result of change today. Why?
In-depth discussions about further amendments to it, as seen also in the ToR sent by the Committee of this Convention to the speakers, we wanted to do a comprehensive follow-up changes. Whereas the provisions of Article 37 UUD 1945 the current nearly impossible to do a comprehensive change. Changes in existing procedures now require that changes made by pointing to certain articles proposed to be changed along with the reasons and the changes that complicate a single package we propose a systematic change, interconnected, and comprehensive. Exactly the problem can be seen from the provisions of article 37 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) which reads:

(1) A proposal to amend the Articles of the Constitution can be scheduled in the MPR session if submitted by at least 1 / 3 of the total membership of the MPR.
(2) Any proposed change in the provisions of the Constitution submitted in writing and must clearly state what is proposed to be changed and why.

The provisions of article 37 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) is clearly specify that only changes made to the articles that are considered needs to be changed and not in one comprehensive package. Therefore, if we want to do further in a comprehensive amendment that must first be done is to alter or amend Article 37 UUD 1945 amendment of the existing order does open the opportunity for a comprehensive change that. During the Article 37 has not been amended almost impossible for us further an agenda of comprehensive amendments.

Changes to chapter 37 on how the change should consider the various alternatives on how to change and institutions that do that now often raised by experts. As is known to have suggested that changes made through the formation of a neutral State Commission specifically formed to prepare a draft constitution changes the results can be determined by the Assembly by a certain quorum. There also are proposed, such as those listed as one offered by alternetif Commission Kosntitusi, so the change is done through a referendum (request opinions directly to the people) on a draft constitution prepared with cooked by a State Commission. Referendum proponent argued that the Constitution was a political contract is paramount and should be determined by the people.

From the various alternatives on how to change it changes over 37 UUD 1945 chapter of the amendment can be directed, for example, in the materials as follows:

First, change the Constitution established by the Assembly with the support of at least half the votes of all members of the Assembly, but the script prepared by a special state commission was formed to prepare a draft Constitution. In such a way that the Assembly voted to stay without discussing another design that has been prepared by the State Commission. While members of the State Commission shall consist of statesmen or leaders who recognized integrity and not partisan. State Commission can be established by the Assembly, whose members may be proposed by the President, the community, and other institutions as deemed necessary.

Second, change the Constitution through a referendum conducted on the design changes prepared by a State Commission which was established by the President. MPR must validate the results of the referendum without a vote again. If this alternative is chosen in conjunction with the change of Article 37 should also modified the provisions of article 2, paragraph (3) which stipulates that "All decisions of the Assembly established by majority vote" in order to open the possibility that the Assembly did not change the Constitution must be based on a majority vote but immediately approve the referendum results.
Other alternatives on how to change it still needs to be even mentioned, an important article the current 37 must be amended first so we can make further amendments to a comprehensive. Without a change in the first 37 UUD 1945 chapter of the applicable amendment hardly possible now we can make further amendments to the 1945 Constitution in a comprehensive manner.

FURTHER EXPLANATION:
Presented at the National Law Convention 1945 The Grand Design Basis Constitutional and Political System of the National Law organized by the National Law Development Agency - Ministry of Law and Human Rights in Jakarta on 15-16 April 2008.
Professor in the Faculty of Law and Constitutional Justice UII on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
The substance of this section has disampaiakn discussions at the Assembly of PKB faction, dated January 10, 2008.
The original here is intended as the Constitution was first established by PPKI on August 18, 1945, then applied again with Presidential Decree dated July 5, 1959 after the Constitution into effect mediated by the RIS 1949 and 1950 Constitution.
The official term is "change" but in this paper used the term in the same change in terms of the amendment because the amendment that the term does mean change.
More speakers agree to use the term follow-up because the amendment formally kenyataaanya although it is true of the 1945 Constitution changed four times, but in fact substantially changed only one time but gradually passed four times. Change 1999-2002 Constitution is a series that his design was agreed in October 1999 while the discussion carried out continuously for 3.5 years but the enactment is done every month in August according to the stages achieved from one trial to the next trial period. So the change is actually only one set of execution of the idea (design) the formality enactment conducted in four stages of the trial. If changes are made four times that which was changed at the Annual Session of the Assembly changed again at the next Annual Session of the Assembly, whereas none of the changes because the changes are merely a continuation of an established concept since awal.Tetapi use of this term is not substantive, so speakers do not mind if anyone uses the term the fifth amendment because it does MPR (1999-2002) is four times of change.
Pancasila here always made the same breath with the 1945 Constitution, even though they are different because one (Pancasila) can not be changed as a modus vivendi and staatsfundamentalnorms, while the other (1945) bias changed with new resultante.
Speakers prefer to follow the opinion Satjipto Rahardjo founding fathers that the term should be replaced with the term because people founding member and PPKI BPUPKI which is regarded as the founder of that country have women members.
Term diberhalakan or idolatry of the 1945 is taken from the expression of speakers who are often put forward by former Muhammadiyah chairman Ahmad Syafii Maarif.
When fit and proper test for Constitutional Justice candidate selection date is March 12, 2008 and 10 beacon mengemuakan speakers who may not be made by the Court because of the ten things that violate the dirambukan sphere beyond the legislative authority or the Court as a judicial institution.
See the RAB Kusumah, 1945 Birth of the Constitution, Badan Penerbit Universitas Indonesia Faculty of Law, Jakarta, 2004.
In fact valid proposition of Lord Acton that power tends to corrupt, so that the officials who had been good after the ruling becomes corrupt if the system is not too tight to close or limit opportunities for corruption.
Speakers can not mention the source of this quote is precisely because the opinion of the speakers Taufik Abdullah read in the newspaper Media Indonesia on one flight from Yogyakarta to Jakarta in late 1998 a day and forget the date speaker. But it made perfect sense.
This section until a couple of down-edited from the writings of authors who contributed and published in the book "Towards a Strong Presidential System", prepared by the Constitutional Review Team PKB Faction MPR speaker in 2007 which itself became its chairman.
In mid-March 2007 speakers have discussed this with Chairman of the People's Consultative Assembly Hidayat Nurwahid but reached the same conclusion that the 1945 results of four times does not anticipate this change and it could cause a political crisis.
It could also happen if for example the Crescent Star Party was (supposedly) go carry the SBY-JK partner with the Democratic Party did not want to come brought a new potential partner with the Democratic Party.
For example the Constitutional Court's decision that turned out wrong or cause problems when the decision shall be final and binding. There are disputes election results by the Constitutional Court rejected his complaint but the perpetrator was sentenced by a court of general criminal because it was cheating. Another example is the decision of the Court of Justice issued the Constitution of the scope or the scope of supervision by the Commission on Judicial when we, for example, that the Constitution requires judges also supervised by KY. Because of this problem is the substance of the constitution must be pembenahannya through constitutional amendments.

BE GOOD FOR YOU ALL USEFUL