Chairman of the MPR K3 said that the MPR tap is still relevant to cope with the current political challenges

Jakarta -Chairman of the Indonesian MPR Constitutional Studies Commission (K3), Taufik Basari said that the reflection of the People’s Consultative Assembly (Tap MPR) number 1 of 2003 was a fundamental case in the regulation of the legal status of the MPR before and after the amendment of the 1945 Indonesia. “Tap MPR number 1 of 2003 is an important product in the history of the Indonesian Constitution. It cannot be separated from the spirit of Reformation 1998 and amendments to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in the period 1999-2002,” Taufik said in his statement, Wednesday (9/17/2025). Browse to continue the content in the discussion with the theme ‘Evaluation of the existence of Tap MPR I/MPR/2003 regarding the overview of materials and legal status of the MPRS/MPR decision in 1960 to 2002’, Taufik explained that the MPR decided and compiled the entire MPR terms, which began to form the recall, form. “Often this MPR tap is forgotten or considered irrelevant. It actually contains basic values ​​that are still very contextual and apply to the challenges of the country today,” he said. Taufik added that the public has now begun to question the direction and political practices conducted by the state administrators. The phenomenon of the distance between the people and the authorities, criticism of policies that are considered not aspiring, to strengthen oligarchy, becomes a sign of the need for joint introspection. “If people feel that the mandate is not being performed, it means that there is a serious problem. We must return to the basic values ​​in the MPR tap, such as the ethics of national life, the eradication of KKN and the strengthening of democracy,” he said. He emphasized that the valid MPR tap, as set out in Article 4 of MPR decision number 1 of 2003, must be seen again, not only legal, but also ethical and essential. TAUFIK -RATE, TAP MPR Number 8 of 2001 regarding recommendations for the direction of eradicating and prevention of corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN), as well as MPR decision number 6 of 2001 regarding the ethics of national life, has a strong relevance for the current conditions. “The ethics of the nation are not only for officials, but also for the people. However, state administrators have a greater responsibility to be an example,” Taufik said. He reminded that the spirit of Reformation was the moral basis for the change in the Constitution of 1945 of the Republic of Indonesia and the birth of the MPR tap that became the guide of the country’s direction. “We do not want to return to authoritarian, centralist and oligarchical practices. It’s time we repeated that sovereignty is in the hands of the people and managed by the Constitution,” he concluded. The eradication of KKN, deputy chairman of the Constitutional Studies Commission, emphasized Martin Hutabarat that the importance of the position of the MPR-NA reform and the urgency of Tap MPR number 1 of 2003, which forms the basis of the applications of other MPR decision. “After the Reformation, the position of the MPR is no longer the highest setting of the state. But MPR Tap Number 1 of 2003 says that there are still a few MPR taps that apply, especially those that are not housed in the form of laws. It is important to understand,” he said. Furthermore, Martin was of the opinion that although there were already several laws regarding the eradication of KKN, the existing regulations were not comprehensive in accordance with the mandate of the MPR tap. “Our law only regulates a part, for example the criminal act of money laundering. But the MPR Tap wants the overall annihilation of KKN,” he said. Martin suggested that the MPR take the initiative to encourage the government and parliament to formulate a law that adopted the content of the valid MPR tap. “The leadership of the MPR can convey to the government and parliament that this tap-tap has not been fully implemented. If it is later set out in the Act, the provision by Tap number I of 2003 can no longer be declared valid,” he concluded. (PRF/EGA)