STRENGTHENING THE POSITION OF ATTORNEY IN THE 1945 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

The arrangement of the Attorney institution of the Republic of Indonesia in the 1945 Constitution is less clear and less detailed about its position as well as its authority in law enforcement. Departing from the description of the weakness of the Attorney of the Republic of Indonesia’s position above, it is necessary to place the Attorney of the Republic of Indonesia proportionally in order to be autonomous and independent in the perspective of the rule of law theory and the power sharing theory. Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the position of Attorney in the 1945 Constitution which was attached in the executive domain had caused a lot of debate. The debate was focused on whether it was a right choice to practically put the Attorney as a law enforcement institution in Executive domain where it should had been legally put in judiciary domain. Furthermore, strengthening the position of Attorney in the 1945 Constitution can be done though the fifth amendment of the 1945 Constitution, therefore the adjustment of the Attorney position must be explicitly stated in the institutions within the environment of judicial power accompanied by its authority.

Trump’s COVID-19 diagnosis and presidential illness

President Donald Trump’s COVID-19 illness, and the treatments he received, raise serious concerns about the adequacy of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to handle cases of transient presidential incapacity. This is particularly challenging when the president refuses to acknowledge any impairment and resists any attempt to constrain his powers, even temporarily.

China’s Fifth Constitutional Amendment

The policy orientations reflected in the fifth amendment to China’s constitution combine some elements of Maoism (an emphasis on ideology, the party, and personality cult); some of the constitutional formality of the Republican era (1912–1949), such as Sun Yat-sen’s Wuquan Xianfa (Five Powers Constitution); and some elements of the legal tradition of China’s imperial past. These policy orientations were justified by a Maoist philosophical voluntarism: the relative detachment between the “economic base” and the “superstructure” justified the persistence of the Chinese cultural tradition and the notion that political reform does not have to accompany economic reform. On those areas that do not represent an imminent threat to the regime, such as economics and law in general, the fifth amendment is purposely vague, to give the regime flexibility in policymaking.