The five months of Prabowo Subianto's administration, which began on October 20, 2024, revealed a crucial side. Especially in legal policy on strategic issues. Most recently, the amendment to Law No. 34 of 2004 concerning the Indonesian National Army (TNI) which sparked polemics in the public.

The position of the president in the presidential system has power in almost all fields of government affairs. The position of the president in his capacity as the head of government (chief of executive) has broad authority with exceptions in the affairs of the judiciary when deciding cases.

The legislative power after the amendment of the constitution is in the legislative power (article 20 paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution). However, if the legislative power owned by the parliament and the president is compared, the legislative power is actually dominated by the president. At least about the president's authority in the formation of government regulations in lieu of laws (Perppu) when facing precarious and coercive circumstances (article 22 paragraph I of the 1945 Constitution). Similar powers do not belong to the House of Representatives.

At this point, the president's legal politics in his capacity as head of government in the field of legislation determines the direction of national legal policy. Although, in the first five months of Prabowo's administration, there seemed to be a strong signal of duplicating the pattern of drafting laws and regulations like the previous era that did not place supreme public participation.

Policy Direction

The weakness of the previous government's legal politics should be a valuable lesson for the Prabowo administration in designing national legal policies. The inaccuracy of legal policy choices will have a systemic impact on the life of the nation and state.

Setting aside meaningful public participation in designing national legal policies will have an impact on the constitutionality of procedures for the formation of laws and regulations and norms in laws and regulations. The House of Representatives and the president should learn valuable lessons from the Constitutional Court's Decree No.91/PUU-VIII/2020 concerning the formal test of Law No. 11 of 2020 concerning Job Creation.

On paper, the direction of national legal policy is guided through the National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN) with Law No. 59 of 2024, the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) with Presidential Regulation No. 12 of 2025, and concretely manifested in national legislation programs (prolegnas), both five-year long-term (2025-2029) and annual priority national legislation.

The position of political and legal is very strategic in determining the direction of national legal policy. As mentioned by Ota Weinberger in Law, Institution and Legal Politics: Fundamental Problems of Legal Theory and Social Philosophy (1991), legal policy is not just a matter of forming, applying, and disclosing facts for the benefit of policy rules. More than that, legal policy is related to the organization of institutions, testing the function of institutions, and the balance between institutions which have dimensions of the effectiveness and acceptance of the proposal in a democratic manner.

In a democratic system of government, the determination of legal policies requires the activation of the functions of state institutions which are based on the spirit  of checks and balances by opening up public spaces effectively. Parliament is activated as a place for citizens to have a participatory and transparent conversation between citizens and the state. The public is actively involved in planning, formulation, and discussion of laws and regulations.

The President and the House of Representatives as a law-making institution work with legal and moral guidance. The uproar that arose from the haphazard law-making process in the previous government should be a valuable lesson for the current government.

Strategic Issues

It has been more than a hundred days of Prabowo's administration in the field of legislation that has not produced many breakthroughs that meet public expectations. The president's rhetoric in responding to strategic and populist issues is not followed by a plan to design legal policies through legislative work.

For example, regarding the commitment to eradicate corruption, the president said that he would pursue corruptors to Antarctica and would create a special prison for corruptors. This statement has no impact if it is not followed by a strong and solid legal policy design for the eradication of corruption. 

Unfortunately, the amendment to the KPK Law is not included in the 2025 priority national legislation or the 2025-2029 national legislation. In fact, the KPK Law as a result of the previous government's revision is considered to be the trigger for the relaxation of the current corruption eradication. However, the Asset Forfeiture Bill and amendments to Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning Corruption Crimes are included in the list of the 2025-2029 national legislative program.

Likewise, the president's hopes, commitments, and encouragement for the judiciary when he appeared before judges throughout Indonesia in mid-February. It also has no meaning if it is not followed by the design of legal policies in the judicial institution. The Judge Position Bill, which is expected to strengthen the independence and independence of the judiciary, in fact, is no longer found in the 2025 priority national legislation and the 2025-2029 national legislative agenda as in the previous period.

The Prabowo administration should focus on designing legal policies as an accelerating tool for development. For example, strengthening the eradication of corruption, strengthening the judiciary, and other priorities in sectors that are in direct contact with the wishes of the public.

Ferdian Andi, Executive Director of the Center for Public Policy and Legal Studies (Puskapkum), Doctoral Program Student of the Graduate School of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.

This article has been published in Jawa Pos Opinion, Thursday, March 20, 2025.