Pemuda dan Konstitusi

PEMUDA DAN KONSTITUSI

Oleh: Pan Mohamad Faiz

Disampaikan sebagai bahan pengantar untuk Acara “Kampus Konstitusi” yang ditayangkan secara tunda melalui jaringan TV Jawa Pos Multimedia Corporation (JPMC) di JakTV, JTV, C-TV, Batam TV, dsb. pada 28-29 Mei 2009 Pukul 22.00 WIB.

Pendahuluan

Terbukanya pintu reformasi yang ditandai dengan mundurnya Soeharto dari tampuk kepemimpinan nasional membawa banyak perubahan dalam struktur dan tatanan kehidupan bangsa Indonesia. Salah satu hal yang terlihat jelas yaitu terjadinya arus perubahan dalam memandang konstitusi sebagai paradigma baru dalam bernegara yaitu cita konstitusionalisme dengan menyinergikan antara konstitusi dengan demokrasi hingga membentuk konsep demokrasi konstitusi (constitutional democracy). Pensakralan terhadap ketentuan-ketentuan yang terdapat dalam UUD 1945 pun akhirnya tumbang setelah dilakukannya amandemen UUD 1945 melalui empat kali tahapan pada tahun 1999 sampai dengan 2002.

Walaupun dari segi nama tidak mengalami banyak perbedaan, namun dari sisi substansi UUD 1945 mengalami perubahan yang cukup mendasar. Konsep bernegara, struktur kelembagaan, dan penegasan terhadap perlindungan hak asasi manusia menjadi tiga hal utama yang menjadi tema sentral dalam proses amandemen tersebut. Hasilnya, 71 butir ketentuan yang ada sebelumnya telah bertambah menjadi 199 butir ketentuan.

Dengan demikian, sulit untuk dapat mengatakan bahwa sebagian besar masyarakat Indonesia telah memahami konstitusi (baru) secara baik dan benar. Oleh karena itu, agar masyarakat dapat lebih memahami secara mendalam terhadap konstitusinya sendiri yang dilandasi atas dasar konsensus bersama, maka konstitusi harus dapat lebih dibumikan sehingga menjadi bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dalam setiap tata kehidupan berbangsa, bernegara, dan bermasyarakat.

Di tengah gencarnya arus perubahan, maka pemuda dan mahasiswa yang menyandang status selaku agent of change menjadi elemen penting yang dapat membantu melaksanakan amanah konstitusi tersebut. Apalagi jika mengingat kembali jarum jam sejarah, merekalah yang awalnya menjadi tombak terdepan dalam mengantarkan perubahan ini. Oleh karenanya, selain diharapkan mampu memahami konstitusi secara utuh, para pemuda Indonesia sejatinya juga diharapkan dapat mengawal sekaligus melaksanakan nilai-nilai ketentuan yang termaktub di dalamnya.

Hak dan Kewajiban Konstitusi

Ketentuan dan kepentingan yang terkait langsung antara aktivitas warga negara dengan Konstitusi terutama terletak dalam hal kewajiban dan hak konstitusinya (constitutional obligations and rights). Jauh pada saat penyusunannya di masa kemerdekaan, para pendiri negara Indonesia telah menempatkan “hak” sebagai unsur penting di dalam Konstitusi. Kata “hak” pertama kali langsung terbaca pada alinea pertama Pembukaan UUD yang berbunyi, “Bahwa sesungguhnya kemerdekaan itu ialah hak segala bangsa …”. Kekuatan dasar dari peletakan kata hak tersebut tidak saja dapat dimaknai sebagai hak bagi bangsa Indonesia, namun juga secara universal menjadi hak dari seluruh bangsa-bangsa yang ada dunia.

Apabila dicermati secara rinci, ketentuan perlindungan terhadap hak warga negara pasca amandemen UUD 1945 menjadi jauh lebih banyak jumlahnya daripada perintah untuk melaksanakan kewajiban bagi warga negara. Perubahan kedua UUD 1945 yang disahkan pada tanggal 18 Agustus 2000 menghasilkan satu bab khusus yang mengatur tentang perlindungan terhadap Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM). Perkataan “hak” dalam Pasal 28A sampai dengan Pasal 28I sejumlah 47 kata yang apabila dihitung penormaannya tentu jauh lebih besar lagi. Keseluruhan dari penempatan ketentuan norma hak tersebut semata-mata sebagai penguatan jaminan atas perlindungan terhadap hak konstitusional bagi segenap warga negara Indonesia.

Beberapa hak tersebut di antaranya, yaitu hak untuk hidup (Pasal 28A), hak untuk membentuk keluarga (Pasal 28B), hak untuk memperoleh pendidikan (Pasal 28C dan Pasal 31), hak dalam hal pengakuan, jaminan, perlindungan, dan kepastian hukum (Pasal 28D), hak untuk berserikat dan berkumpul (Pasal 28E), hak untuk berkomunikasi dan memperoleh informasi (Pasal 28E), hak untuk memperoleh rasa aman dan bebas dari penyiksaan (Pasal 28G), hak dalam jaminan sosial dan perlindungan terhadap milik pribadi (Pasal 28H), dan hak-hak mendasar lainnya.

Lebih lanjut, UUD 1945 juga menentukan hak baik bagi lembaga negara, Presiden, maupun Pemerintah Daerah guna menjalankan tugas dan kewenangannya. Konstitusi turut pula menegaskan bahwa negara wajib mengakui hak-hak tradisional yang tumbuh dan berkembang di tengah-tengah masyarakat.

Sedangkan ketentuan “kewajiban” di dalam tubuh Konstitusi sebenarnya lebih menekankan pada kewajiban yang harus dilaksanakan oleh lembaga negara. Namun demikian, warga negara juga tetap memiliki kewajiban yang tidak bisa diindahkan, seperti misalnya kewajiban warga negara untuk menjunjung tinggi hukum dan pemerintahan (Pasal 27), kewajiban sekaligus hak untuk ikut serta dalam upaya pembelaan negara (Pasal 27 dan Pasal 30), kewajiban untuk menghormati hak asasi manusia orang lain (Pasal 28I), serta kewajiban bagi warga negara untuk mengikuti pendidikan dasar dengan catatan bahwa pemerintah pulalah yang wajib membiayainya [Pasal 31 ayat (2)].

Intergenerasi Konstitusi

Dalam sejarah ketatanegaraan Indonesia telah banyak bermunculan segudang para ahli, pakar, dan pengamat hukum tata negara Indonesia pada zamannya masing-masing. Setidaknya terdapat empat generasi yang membawa pengaruh terhadap pertumbuhan konstitusionalisme di Indonesia. Pertama, pada masa awal dan pra-kemerdekaan, hadir tokoh-tokoh nasional seperti Muhammad Yamin, Soepoemo, dan kawan-kawan. Kedua, pada masa orde lama menuju ke orde baru, hadir Djokosoetono, Padmo Wahyono, Sri Soemantri, Oemar Seno Adji, hingga Ismail Sunny. Ketiga, para begawan konstitusi yang turut membidani peralihan dari masa orde baru ke masa reformasi, seperti misalnya Jimly Asshiddiqie, Harun Al-Rasyid, Bagir Manan, Moh. Mahfud MD., dan Yusril Ihza Mahendra, serta para anggota Forum Konstitusi. Keempat, generasi terakhir pada saat ini yang turut membangkitkan gairah kehidupan konstitusi, seperti misalnya Satya Arinanto, Denny Indrayana, Saldi Isra, dan puluhan pakar tata negara lainnya pasca berdirinya Pusat Studi Konstitusi (PKK) di 34 perguruan tinggi di Indonesia.

Tentunya masing-masing pihak memilik versi dan pandangan yang berbeda mengenai generasi konstitusi di Indonesia, termasuk pula nama-nama lain yang belum tersebutkan di atas. Akan tetapi, dalam konteks ini yang hendak dikemukakan adalah bahwa generasi tersebut tentunya memiliki pandangan dan pemikiran yang beraneka ragam terhadap konstitusi dan konstitusionalisme di Indonesia. Garis perbedaan tersebut setidaknya terlihat pada cara pandang terhadap konstitusi yang awalnya bersifat tertutup menjadi semakin lebih terbuka dan progresif. Kajian terhadap konstitusi semakin hari di antara generasi menjadi semakin berkembang sebagaimana sifat asli dari konstitusi itu sendiri yaitu hidup mengikuti zamannya. Terlebih lagi, perkembangan sistem ketatanegaraan dan perbandingan konstitusi dari negara lain kini telah menjadi salah satu referensi yang diikutsertakan, sehingga objek studi dan kajiannya pun menjadi lebih luas dan beragam.

Mencermati pentingnya suatu konstitusi yang kokoh dan mampu mengikuti kebutuhanya zamannya, maka pembangunan masyarakat, khususnya generasi muda, untuk lebih memahami dan menyadari akan nilai-nilai konstitusi menjadi suatu keniscayaan. Untuk itu diperlukan pembinaan secara umum terhadap masyarakat dan penekunan secara khusus bagi para penerus dan pemikir-pemikir konstitusi yang telah ada. Sehingga, tidak akan lagi terjadi sedikit pun kevakuman berpikir terhadap konstitusi sebagaimana sempat tercipta pada masa orde baru yang lalu

Penutup

Memahami konstitusi beserta isinya baik secara sepintas maupun secara menyeluruh adalah suatu keharusan bagi setiap warga negara, tidak terkecuali bagi para pelajar dan mahasiswa yang berlatar belakang non-hukum. Hal demikian menjadi penting karena konstitusi memuat aturan tentang sistem penyelenggaraan bernegara dan perlindungan terhadap hak-hak dasar bagi warga negaranya (constitutional basic rights). Tidak ada satu pun dari negara demokratis yang tidak meletakan konstitusi sebagai pilar dasar dari kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegaranya.

Pemuda Indonesia yang pada saat ini jumlahnya mencapai sekitar 80 juta jiwa, menjadi amat penting sebagai subyek utama dan pertama yang harus memahami dan membumikan nilai-nilai yang terkandung di dalam konstitusi. Sebagai generasi yang berada di tengah-tengah, pemuda dapat menjadi katalisator dan akomodator sejumlah gagasan-gagasan segar baik dari generasi sebelumnya maupun dari generasi selanjutnya. Dengan demikian, perkembangan konstitusi diharapkan akan dapat terus berjalan sebagaimana mestinya melalui pembinan dan regenerasi pemahaman konstitusi yang berkesinambungan, sistematis, dan stabil.

Apalagi, pasca reformasi dan perubahan UUD 1945, konstitusi dan hukum ketatanegaraan bukan lagi sekedar objek teoritis. Akan tetapi dengan kehadiran Mahkamah Konstitusi, implementasi teori dan upaya hukum tata negara telah memperoleh ladang praktik yang subur. Pelaksanaan nilai-nilai yang terkandung di dalam konstitusi menjadi lebih hidup dan berkembang. Oleh karenanya, konstitusi kini bukan lagi menjadi lantunan pasal-pasal mati yang pada umumnya selalu dijadikan sebagai pemanis kebijakan dan formalitas belaka.

* Penulis adalah pemerhati hukum dan konstitusi.

Rumors of war

As Jesus stated in His end times discourse, known as the Olivet Discourse - He told us that we'd see significant warfare during the last generation and He also noted that we'd be hearing "rumors of war" as well. We've been consistently hearing about the various "rumors of war" recently: Russia marching south (towards Israel) and threatening both Georgia and Ukraine, China threatening war with Taiwan, Israel threatening Iran, Iran threatening Israel, Pakistan's fight against the Taliban increasing with control of their nukes in the balance, and on and on the list goes.

This week, North Korea is in focus. Because South Korea has joined an international group imposing sanctions on North Korea, in turn, North Korea is threatening war with South Korea, (read here). At the same time, Russia has issued a warning over this, calling it a "dangerous brinkmanship, a war of nerves" that must stop.

Additionally, the U.S. is being threatened (read here), as North Korea restarts their weapons grade nuclear plant. Quotes from this news article include the following:

"The North's military said in a statement that it will respond with 'immediate, strong military measures' against any attempt to stop and search North Korean ships under the Proliferation Security Initiative. The statement, carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency, also said the regime no longer considers itself bound by the armistice that ended the Korean War."

"It also said it cannot guarentee safety for South Korean and U.S. navy ships sailing near the disputed western Korean sea border."

Interestingly, but not surprising - we see the following headline "Iran missile experts in North Korea to help with rocket launch", As usual, Iran is in the middle of things, further stirring the pot. It appears that Iran is working closely with North Korea in their missile development program.

Japan, perhaps more concerned than any other nation, has implemented the following as a result:

"As tensions increase ahead of the rocket launch, Japan's Air Self-Defense Force began deploying units capable of shooting down a rocket to the northern prefectures of Akita and Iwate...On Friday Tokyo gave its military the green light to shoot down any incoming North Korean rockets"


At the same time, still under the category of "Rumors of war", we see that Iran has also sent warships (six) into international waters (read here). Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, quoted by the ISNA news agency stated "Iran has dispached six...warships to international waters and the Guld of Aden in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy...and is indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores."

The world is unwittingly preparing for the most massive period of warfare ever experienced on earth. During the Tribulation, the world will see warfare occur in ways that have never been seen before. In the first few judgments of Revelation, we see a fourth of the world engaged in warfare, followed by massive death and destruction (Revelation 6:8), and then, just a little later in the Tribulation, one third of the earth will be burned as it goes up in flames (Revelation 8:6-12).

Jesus knew that His bride, the Church, would witness the build-up and preparation for the coming wars. That is why He added these comforting words in the context of these building rumors of war:

"You will hear of wars and rumors of war, BUT SEE TO IT THAT YOU ARE NOT ALARMED. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come." (emphasis mine - Matthew 24:6)

How awesome, that we worship a God that loves us enough to give us a template of what is to come. He gave us all of the signs around us, so that we would know what to expect. He gave us this information to comfort us during these troubling times.

He also told us something even more comforting during these times:

"When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (Luke 21:28)

Comforting words indeed.

Israel draws a line in the sand

President Obama has made it clear - he supports the idea of dividing Jerusalem, and returning to the "pre-1967 borders" which would dictate that Israel give up the West Bank and the Golan Heights as well. If this were to happen, Israel would be at an enormous disadvantage militarily, which is the main reason the terrorists covet that land so much. Such divisions, with a "continuous" Palestinian state would also divide Israel (at least what small part of Israel is left) into two halves, a northern half and a southern half.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has come out and stated in very clear terms that under his watch, Jerusalem will never be divided. So within one week of meeting with President Obama, we can see that no agreement was reached between these two leaders (read here):

"Jerusalem was always ours and will always be ours. it will never again be partitioned and divided", stated Mr. Netanyahu on Thursday, following meetings with Obama.

At least now, both parties have a clear understanding of their two widely different positions. That explains the bizarre body language that we all witnessed during the press conference. Obama refused to make eye-contact with Netanyahu and Netanyahu was leaning forward while staring intently at Obama. This strange press conference was noticed by many members of the media, so it wasn't just my personal observation (alone).

To take this division between the U.S. and Israel one step further, we also see a response from Israel, regarding Obama's demands that the Israel MUST inform the U.S. of any potential strike against Iran, in advance of such action. Confirming (again) that Israel will not allow Iran to complete their nuclear development, Israel's National Security Adviser, Uzi Arad stated that Israel would not necessarily give the U.S. forewarning on such an attack. Arad also stated that Mr. Netanyahu had just "clarified that Israel reserves operational freedom and several of the most senior figures in the administration said 'of course'" (read here), confirming Netanyahu's full support internally.

So there we have it. A line has been drawn in the sand. The next move will probably come from Obama, when he visits Cairo the first week of June and rolls out his plan for the Middle-East.

This situation is getting VERY interesting. Things are happening in a fast and furious way; the "world" is demanding that Israel give up their land to the terrorists who intend to destroy Israel. Israel is refusing to do so. The push for a "peace plan" is being pushed by the UN, the EU, the U.S., Russia, and most of the countries surrounding Israel, like never before.

But Israel is standing firm. They have made it clear that such divisions of their land is unacceptable.

Like a chess match - we await the next move. Unfortunately, for Israel, this is not a game. Their very existence is hanging in the balance. And finally, they have a leader who recognizes this fact, and he will do everything possible to preserve Israel's existence.

What happens next?

There is no telling, but one thing is for sure - a line has been drawn in the sand by Israel - a line that won't be crossed.

Israel stands alone

Bible prophecy is definitive about one central point in the "end times", and that point is that Israel will stand alone in the world, with no "earthly" support. I say no "earthly" support, because God will certianly stand with Israel during the last days, as shown dramatically in the passages of Ezekiel 38-39. When the epic invasion of Israel takes place, as described by Ezekiel, there are no nations standing with Israel. Only God. Zachariah 12:3 also makes the same point:

"On that day, when ALL the nations of earth are gathered against her, I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for ALL the nations."

It is clear that the Obama administration sees no urgency in dealing with Iran, rather, preferring "talks" with Iran. This is despite the fact that a decade of "talks" has produced nothing - not a shred of progress has been made. Iran has made a mockery of so-called "talks", while they race towards nuclear arms. Even today we see Iran boasting of their missile capability:
"Ahmadinejah claims Iran's new missile capable of hitting Israel". Now thats a call for peace isn't it? It is painfully obvious that Iran has NO designs on peace. Yet, the U.S. administration pretends that "talks" can be effective.

At the same time we see Leon Panetta, representing the U.S. (as head of the CIA), literally threatening Israel, that if they attempt to deal with Iran, alone, then they will be in "big trouble" (read here). In other words, it has become clear this week, that the U.S. is unwilling to take the Iranian threat seriously. Period. Israel must take the situation seriously, as their very existence is in question.

America, the last country left on this planet who support(ed) Israel is now abandoning that support, during this most critical time, while Israel's very existence is being threatened by a radical Islamic nation - a nation on the verge of nuclear weapons.

It is painfully clear (unless something changes - and with God involved, anything is possible) that Israel now stands alone in this world. America has made it clear that Israel must patiently "wait" while pretending that "talks" with Iran will be effective, all the while knowing that is impossible. All the while, watching Iran race towards completion of nuclear warheads.

Mr. Netanyahu knows that talks will be ineffective. He knows Israel's existence is at stake. Israel knows that she can accomplish this mission against Iran "alone".

Its all shaping up exactly as described in the bible. Everything we see today - almost every pertinent headline - can be found in the prophetic scriptures.

Israel stands alone. But God is patiently watching and waiting for His time. That time will be soon. As stated by God Himself, in terms of dealing with Israel's enemies in the last days (Ezekiel 39:21):

"I will display my glory among the nations, and all the nations will see the punishment I inflict and the hand I lay upon them..."

"And so I will show my greatness and my holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations." (Ezekiel 38:23)

God has made it abundantly clear that HE still stands with Israel. He also issued a warning (Zechariah 12:3) to those countries attempting to divide Jerusalem, which is called for in the current peace plans that the U.S. fully supports:

"I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for ALL the nations. All who try to move it will injure themselves ("cut into pieces")."

The U.S. administration is pushing the plan with great enthusiasm - a plan which will divide Jerusalem, giving its most essential land to Israel's enemies.

God is watching this situation. He is watching the countries align themselves against Israel. He is watching all of the attempts to divide Jerusalem, and give away the very land that He granted to Abraham, in His everlasting covenant. He has also issued warnings to those countries involved.

Is anyone listening to God's word?

More News:

More news articles are coming out regarding President Obama's Middle-East plan.

"Obama to Propose New Peace Plan for Middle East

"Peres welcomes new US peace push"

What we have thus far from the articles above:

- President Obama will propose a new peace plan for the Middle East that will "emphasize the whole region".

- The plan will insist on "moves by Arab states as well as [Israel]".

- Obama will unveil his plan when he visits Cairo next month (June).

- Jordan's King Abdullah II stated the following "We expect an announcement from the US administration" and it is expected that the United States is expected to unveil a plan to relaunch Arab-Israeli peace negotiations.

President Obama is scheduled to travel to the Middle-East next month and there, he will roll out a new peace plan for Israel and the surrounding region. This should be interesting and definitely worth watching.

Obama meets Netanyahu

The first meeting finally took place yesterday, concluding with the usual "political speech" and rhetoric. We are left to attempt to read between the lines and ponder what was stated behind closed doors. There will be additional meetings this week, which could reveal more information - we'll be watching closely. We are also led by biblical prophecy, which tells us that all nations will turn against Israel in the last days.

The best and most complete review of the meeting is found on Joel Rosenberg's website (see here). To me, the most revealing quote, as given by Mr. Rosenberg is quoted below:

"Yes, it appears a diplomatic train wreck is coming between the U.S. and Israel in the not-too-distant future given that Netanyahu understand Iran's leaders are part of an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult and believe it is their God-given mission to annihilate Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it, and the American President and his team clearly do not."

President Obama, consistent with his earlier rhetoric believes diplomacy will work in this situation and stated that he wants to see a "positive response from Iran by the end of the year."

The problem is, waiting until the end of the year may give Iran enough time to develop their enriched uranium into a nuclear warhead. The clock is ticking, and Israel's future is dependent upon stopping Iran's nuclear development. Obama seems to be in no hurry.

Perhaps more interesting is a quote from this meeting, as reported in the Jerusalem Post (read here), which referred to President Obama planning "to formulate a new Middle-East peace initiative which would be presented soon.".....A new peace plan? I'm surprised this isn't receiving more media attention. A new peace plan? This hasn't been mentioned before. We'll be watching for this "new" plan VERY closely as it develops.

One quote which would actually be funny, if it weren't so sad and true. Mr. Netanyahu stated the obvious:

"The prime minister said he is ready to resume peace talks immediately, but that progress is contingent on the Palestinians acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." In other words, Israel is being forced to negotiate with groups/nations/states who REFUSE TO ACCEPT ISRAEL's RIGHT TO EXIST.

At the risk of stating the obvious:

How can you negotiate peace with groups who are committed to your complete destruction?
How can you negotiate peace with groups who refuse to admit that you even have a right to exist?

The basic premise of demanding that Israel seriously "negotiate" under such a scenario is so ridiculous, its hard to believe, yet we all pretend that "real peace" can be brokered under such a bizarre setting.

More importantly - what is really going on between Obama and Netanyahu, behind closed doors.

Thus far the picture that is emerging (and this could rapidly change depending upon circumstances):

- President Obama still believes that you can negotiate with Iran, apparently not understanding or simply not caring about their religious, apocalyptic view of destroying Israel in order for their (Islamic) Mahdi to return.

- Prime Minister Netanyahu did not even utter the words "two-state solution", and has probably realized that he will not receive help from the U.S. in terms of seriously dealing with Iran. Apparently Obama was unable to convince Netanyahu to buy-in to the U.S. view. That is comforting for anyone who is concerned for Israel's future.

- Prime Minister Netanyahu may be seeing these meetings as one last chance to obtain U.S. "buy-in" for launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel CAN do this on their own, without U.S. approval, but it will be more difficult. I believe Israel is prepared to complete this mission even if the U.S. strongly disapproves. Their survival as a nation may depend on it.

- It is clear that the U.S. feels no urgency in dealing with Iran, despite their race to complete the final stages of nuclear development.

- President Obama has a "new plan" being developed? THAT could prove to be very interesting, yet interestingly, isn't receiving much attention.

There should be more information leaking out this week, as further meetings take place, between Israel and the U.S.

For a prophecy watcher - this is fascinating because we are seeing a push for a comprehensive, Middle-East peace plan, like we haven't seen before. Things are moving rapidly, and any new development is potentially significant.

We're watching this situation closely for any significant developments. Meanwhile, be listening for the Trumpet to call us home - it may not be long now.

How close are we?

Often, its easy to get caught up in the daily prophetic events and watching the various signs, and as a result, its easy to forget the bottom-line on prophecy. To me, that "bottom-line" refers to the grand finale: The Rapture of the Chuch, followed by the Tribulation which concludes with the Second Coming of Christ Jesus.

We watch the various signs that have been given; those signs that indicate that we're in the last days. These get discussed daily, and most of us are well familiar with them. But occasionally its best to go back to the basics and a couple of key "events" which warrant close observation.

We ("we" being the group of prophecy watchers who take a highly literal view of biblical prophecy) believe the bible speaks to prophecy in a specific, detailed, literal way. We take such a view, because ALL prophecy which has already been fulfilled, going back several thousand years, has ALL been fulfilled in a literal manner. There is no reason to believe that future prophecy will be any different.

As far as the sequence of events, we believe that there is overwhelming biblical evidence that the Rapture of the Church takes place prior to the Tribulation. The bible gives us one important "date" for a clear and distinctive event that indicates that the Tribulation has "officially" started, and that is the verse given in Daniel 9:27. That verse tells us that the Tribulation begins when the "covenant" is confirmed between the antichrist and "the many": a comprehensive peace deal that finally gives the world "peace and safety" for Israel and her surrounding neighbors.

Another key "date" is given by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse of Matthew 24. In this discourse, Jesus said that only one generation would witness ALL of the events (aka "signs") that He had just given, including the signs of the generation, the Tribulation and the Second Coming.

So we have two key dates that seem highly significant:

- The "confirmation" of the peace covenant (which marks the beginning of the Tribulation), and
- The length of a generation - which tells us how long these signs will last before the Tribulation and Second Coming.

Regarding the peace covenant, it appears that we are finally at the threshold of confirming such a covenant. As stated in earlier posts, the Obama administration is putting on the "full-court press" towards a peace plan in the Middle-East. The international community, as led by the "Quartet" (Russia, U.S., UN and the EU), and its special envoy, Tony Blair (who is also speculated to become the "permanent" President of the EU, interestingly), and the surrounding muslim countries, who are all pressing for a "final solution" to the ongoing Middle-East conflicts.

Almost everything being discussed now, in terms of a peace plan, is based on the "Oslo Accords" of 1993, which was intended to be a 7 year plan - which involved progressive independence of a separate "Palestinian State". The plan involved a 5 year period, followed by a 2 year period (its complicated), before the final Palestinian State would be recognized. The plan was agreed, but never "confirmed" in 1993 due to the violence which erupted shortly after the plan was signed. We are now watching the process of having this plan "confirmed".

In 25 years of watching prophecy I have never seen the world SO lined up and ready to confirm such a covenant. I believe we're VERY close to the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27.

So the question becomes - what does it mean to "confirm" a covenant? This idea receives a lot of attention in prophecy circles. I believe (and this is just my opinion) the "confirmation" aspect involves sending in peace-keeping military forces into the region (mainly Israel), in order to ensure that the plan is enforced (aka "confirmed"). I believe this for one simple reason: in the past, any such agreements immediately dissolved because of violence in the region. The only way to prevent such violence is to have a strong military presence in the area.

Therefore, I believe (again, my speculation only) that the antichrist could be the individual who arranges for, and agrees to sending in the peace-keeping forces. In the past, the EU has offered such "assistance", and those plans have been offered in the past. The reason is obvious: the U.S. cannot send in troops to maintain the peace, as they are not trusted by the Islamic groups in the area. The UN could, theoretically, but they are stretched to the max currently and its hard to imagine the UN having a potent force in the Middle-East. However, the EU would be a desirable candidate for many reasons.

We also know that the antichrist will come from the "revived Roman Empire", and the EU certianly fits that bill. So, as the month of May progresses and meetings between parties in the region are progressing in a fast and furious way - one thing I am paying CLOSE attention to, is any offer to "confirm" the treaty via peace-keeeping forces, during these negotiations.

The second "key date" is the length of a generation - as Jesus said only one generation will witness ALL such end-times events, including the Tribulation period and the Second Coming.

So what is a generation?

Biblically, there are many references. This receives a lot of discussion, and it would take too long to dissect each view. Some folks want to say it must be 70 years. Some folks believe its 40 years. I am part of the group who believes a "generation" (given the context of Matt. 24) represents the length of a life-span, during THAT era being discussed - in this case, as directed to the people living during the end times events.

Currently people are living to 110-120 years and there are many people alive today who are between 110-120 years of age.
(see here). Additionally, we were told, by Jesus, that these end times would be like the days of Noah:

"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man" (Matt. 24:37)

We can then read those specific scriptures regarding the "time of Noah" (Genesis 6:3):

"Then the Lord said, 'My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years".

Interestingly, from the linked article above, we can see that the longest life-span in this generation has been 122 years, and we can also see that there are many people alive today who are 110-120 years of age. Interesting correlation.

Combine that fact - with the beginning of the generation - and we have something to work with.

According to Jesus' very words, He clearly identified the beginning of "birth pains" (aka the "generation"), and we believe that the WWI era fit Jesus' description perfectly. Each of the beginning signs, as given by Jesus, appeared in that era around 1918. World war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences, ALL spiked dramatically, together, for the first time in human history during that era. There was never before such a time, when ALL of these signs spiked, in concert, at the same time.

So. Putting two and two together becomes quite revealing. If the "last generation" began during the WWI era, and I believe the evidence is overwhelming that it indeed began at that time (1914-1920 period), and given that a generation today is approximately 120 years, that places us at the very very end of "the generation". Further confirmation of this idea is revealed because ALL signs which have been given for us to watch - have ALL occured during this generation.

Then, on top of these ideas - we see the "final peace" settlement for Israel and her neighbors coming together in a fast and furious way, right here at the end of the generation. All we need is for a "great leader" to step forward and come up with a plan to "confirm" the peace deal. I believe we are right at this threshold.

Two last points:

1. Jesus did not say that the generation would be "completed" when we see the conclusion of end times events. He merely said that not one generation would pass before these events conclude with His Second Coming. In other words, the conclusion of stated events will come at some time before the generation ends. How close these very last events occur in relation to the very end of the 110-120 year period is anyone's guess.

2. We know that the Tribulation will have to reach its conclusion before the Second Coming. The Tribulation is a 7 year period, so that time period must be factored in as well. So a prophecy watcher, who is waiting for a pre-tribulational Rapture of the Church, must subtract 7 years from this generational period.

All of these factors give strong indication that we are very very close to the last days of this generation. The push for this so-called "final peace solution" screams to the believer that the time is upon us. The antichrist is alive today and waiting for his opportunity to come to power; that much seems clear. He'll make his initial "splash" on the world-wide scene by confirming this covenant.

But we won't be here for that. We have a destination that awaits us, a destination far better than anything on earth. Its our heavenly destination. Jesus will take us there, as He has promised:

"I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am." (John 14:1-3).

That glorious place awaits us now. The signs tell us that we will be there soon.

Maranatha! Our Lord Comes!

When They Say Peace....

Below is a commentary as found on the "Rapture Ready" website (here), as written by Terry James. It is worth repeating here, as I believe it applies to the age we are living in, particularly concerning the rapidly changing situation in the Middle-East as it applies to biblical prophecy. The scriptural reference at the very end of the commentary (1 Thessalonians 4-5) is one of the many references pointing to a pre-tribulation rapture. The body of believers are in the "light" not in darkness, and not appointed to experience the "Day or the Lord", aka the Tribulation. We do have an appointment however - and that appointment is to meet Jesus "in the air", followed by an immediate escort to heaven. It is clear from these scriptures (and many many more) that we are not destined to encounter the Tribulation.


When They Say Peace…

The drumbeat for peace can be heard within the rumblings of strange changes that inflict convulsive crisis after crisis upon this troubled planet. Israel, just as Old and New Testament prophets foretold, is at the heart of the birth-like contractions that have to be deliberately ignored to be missed. Paul the apostle and prophet wrote under inspiration, “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape” (1Thessalonians 5:3).

This prophecy, I’m convinced, is most relevant to this particular hour in these waning days of human history. I believe, as a matter of fact, that this and surrounding Scripture relates directly to the rapture of all believers in Jesus Christ. I will attempt to explain a bit further into this commentary. First, I want us to try to understand exactly where this generation is presently positioned on God’s prophetic timeline.

Israel, which Zechariah the prophet said would become a burdensome stone and cup of trembling to the whole world, is already, in this pre-tribulation era, exactly that at this juncture in the geopolitical scope of things. The Jewish state is at the center of a call for peace that is unlike any such call in history.

Potential for nuclear conflict has diplomats—particularly of the western world--on edge, to put it mildly. Pakistan is in danger of falling to Taliban marauders, such prospects causing great consternation. The thought of Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry in the hands of those who have thrown in their lot with the likes of Osama bin Laden are disconcerting. That Iran is on the precipice of having such weaponry is even more disturbing, and a thing those who cry peace and safety simply cannot and will not tolerate.

Fears of the growing Iranian threat have to some extent brought even the Israelis and the Arabs to the point of talking things over. Jordan's King Abdullah told a news conference in Berlin, "What we are discussing today is a combined approach of bringing together Arabs, Europeans, and the United States as a team to create the circumstances over the next several months that allow Israelis and Palestinians to sit at the table, but also with Lebanese, Syrians and Arab nations” (“Jordan says new approach to Mideast peace emerging,” by Salah Nasrawi, Associated Press,5/6/09).

So, international negotiators led by the Obama administration are putting unprecedented efforts into coming up with a strategy for peacemaking. Those calling for peace will have to convince the Israeli government and the Arab Islamic nations of the Mideast to agree to do the give-and-take compromises essential to formulating a peace that will defuse war seen as inevitably on the horizon.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, now international Mideast envoy, announced that the Obama administration and others are working on the strategy for peace talks that he expects to be unveiled within six weeks. “ ‘We're about to get a new framework,’ Blair said late Tuesday. ‘I can only speculate right now about what that framework is going to be. The reason I say people should be more hopeful is that this is a framework that is being worked on at the highest level in the American administration, (and) in the rest of the international community’" (“Blair: New Mideast Peace Plan Unveiled in Weeks,” Newsmax.com, 5/6/09).

Paul’s words of end-times prophecy resound within current headlines. The world’s call for peace and safety just happens to be focused on the one city about which God told Zechariah to issue the Lord’s proclamation: “And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it” (Zechariah 12:3).

The fascinating thing to consider here is that in Bible prophecy the focus of nations on end-times Jerusalem and the call for peace are connected in a way that cannot be denied. Neither can it be realistically denied that the focus on the exigencies of the present, with the international community trying to divide Jerusalem for the sake of “peace,” causes words of concern to leap from hourly news headlines.

Now for something of truly astounding importance to be considered. Please weigh carefully what follows.

The Apostle Paul is the prophet given the duty of laying out the coming of Jesus Christ for believers. The prophecy likens that coming as “a thief in the night” breaking in upon an unsuspecting household. This cannot be the second advent of Revelation 19:11 because the entire world of earth-dwellers who are still alive after the seven years of tribulation will see the coming of the King of kings and Lord of lords. It will not be a stealthy coming, but a glorious re-entry (with the saints accompanying their Lord) into a world about to be destroyed by incorrigibly wicked humanity.

To make the point of the astounding importance of the current cry for peace surrounding Jerusalem and Israel, let’s consider the Scriptures immediately surrounding Paul’s prophecy about “peace and safety”—i.e., let’s look at this block of Scripture in context:

“For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words. But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-5:4).

Even so, come, Lord Jesus

EU closer to a permanent presidency

In one interesting bit of news today; news that won't get much public attention, but for prophecy watchers is very interesting - we discover that the EU is rapidly moving towards ratification of the "Lisbon treaty". What is the Lisbon treaty?
To understand this and the potential prophetic significance, one has to go back several years in the development of the EU.

For years, the EU attempted to have a unifying constitution signed by every country. Back then, the idea was to have each country take a country-wide vote (ie, the citizens of each country) from each country in order to formalize the EU. There were three countries who refused to vote positively for the constitution: France, Netherlands and UK.

So. In an interesting development, the EU decided that it would shelve the idea of having the constitution formally ratified and instead shifted to the "Lisbon treaty" - which effectively accomplished the same things as the constitution. It does not require a "vote" from the citizens of each country. One of the most interesting aspects of the Lisbon treaty (and there are many), is that once ratified, it will create a "permanent" EU president. Currently the EU presidency rotates on a six-month basis, among member states.

We know that biblical prophecy calls for the antichrist to rise from the revived Roman Empire, aka the EU. Therefore any position which becomes very powerful within the EU is worth watching. A "permanent" president of the EU most definitely fits in that category.

Previously, it looked like the Czech Republic and Ireland would be the only "hold-outs", refusing to go along with the Lisbon treaty. Primarily because of the economic situation, the Senate of the Czech Republic is now backing the Lisbon treaty, making it far more likely that all 27 members of the EU will now ratify this treaty.

The news article describing this scenario, (read here), is also stating that Ireland now has the votes for approval. That would remove the last obstacles standing in the way for the Lisbon treaty ratification and a permanent presidency for the EU.

Perhaps even more interesting in this "watch" is the fact that Tony Blair has been quietly lobbying for this top position within the EU. It is still early in the process, but he seems to be the leader for this presidency. New names could emerge and Mr. Blair is certianly not a lock for the job, however many publications are already making the assumption that he is the frontrunner. We shall see; this is most definitely worth watching.

Meanwhile, there seems to be more and more concensus on a peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians, which is rapidly developing (read here). Quotes from this article:

"Palestinian sources in Ramallah said on Wednesday, thet they expect the Obama administration to force a new peace plan of its own on Israel and the Palestinians next month."

"The American plan would, however, have the support of the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, said the sources. It would deal with a final settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including relations with Syria and Lebanon. It would also mention the establishment of full diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab states."

There is only one glaring problem with this peace plan. The Palestinians, Hamas, and Hezbollah - all surrounding Israel and pivitol to such peace - refuse to declare that Israel has a right to exist. But the world refuses to admit to this rather delicate problem. We all turn our collective heads ("we" being the media, heads of state, the representatives of the EU, US, Russia and the EU) and pretend that the surrounding terrorists - those who must "buy-in" to the agreement - are not continually calling for the destruction of Israel.

If it weren't so sad and prophetic, it would be hilarious. But its not hilarious; its symptomatic of the state of affairs in the world today.

We know from bible prophecy that the peace plan, or the "covenant" which the antichrist brokers, will be confirmed with the "many" (Danial 9:27). Does this refer to the concensus being gathered by the "quartet", which is represented by the EU, UN, US and Russia? Note the news quote above, that each of these countries are moving towards agreement of the so-called peace plan now circulating.

Everything is moving towards the "end game". We see the EU growing and growing; now close to formal ratification of the Lisbon treaty and closer to a formal, permanent presidency...We see the "final solution" to a peace plan in the Middle-East being circulated with great urgency...We see Iran moving closer and closer to nuclear arms, while calling for the destruction of Israel...We see the Med Union now broken into two halves (north and south)...We see the world moving towards a single currency and most definitely global regulation...We see calls for a global governance...We watch the technology advance which would allow for the "Mark of the Beast" to come into existance...We watch the alliances of "Gog-MaGog" (Ezekiel 38-39) strengthing and threatening Israel on a daily basis...and on and on it goes.

As previously mentioned, but worth repeating, all of the end times prophecy signs that we have been given scripturally are present and accounted for. Not only that, but these signs are moving rapidly towards conclusion. Its almost hard to believe, but its all right there - right in front of us to watch and observe. We were given these signs in advance - and they are all happening, just as described.

As many prophecy watchers - I too believe that we are very very close to the beginnings of the Tribulation. We are also very very close to seeing Jesus' words conclude:

"When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift your heads, because your redemption is drawing near" (Luke 21:28)

Sengketa Pemilu dan Masa Depan Demokrasi

SENGKETA PEMILU DAN MASA DEPAN DEMOKRASI

Oleh: Pan Mohamad Faiz *

Perhelatan akbar pesta demokrasi nasional guna memilih calon anggota legislatif 2009 berlangsung penuh warna. Hiruk-pikuk pelaksanaan Pemilu Indonesia yang melibatkan ribuan calon anggota legislatif guna memperebutkan sekitar 18.960 kursi, kerap menghiasi pemberitaan utama di media massa. Hal demikian semakin bertambah panas manakala sistem Pemilu yang digunakan menisbatkan sebagai sistem Pemilu terumit di dunia. Walhasil, benih-benih potensi sengketa Pemilu menjamur hampir di sebagian besar daerah pemilihan, khususnya terkait dengan cara dan proses penghitungan suara.

Pada dasarnya, ragam potensi sengketa Pemilu tersebut dapat diklasifikasikan menjadi tiga jenis, yaitu pelanggaran administratif, pelanggaran pidana, dan perselisihan hasil pemilihan umum (PHPU). Untuk pelanggaran yang menyentuh ranah administratif menjadi kewenangan KPU, sedangkan terhadap pelanggaran pidana Pemilu masuk ke dalam ranah pengadilan umum. Sementara itu, PHPU menjadi domain khusus bagi Mahkamah Konstitusi untuk memutuskannya.

Sejatinya, sesuai dengan Pasal 250 dan Pasal 257 UU Pemilu Legislatif, pelanggaran administratif harus terselesaikan maksimum 7 (tujuh) hari sejak diterimanya laporan dari Bawaslu/Panwaslu, sedangkan untuk pelanggaran pidana Pemilu harus sudah diputus paling lama 5 (lima) hari sebelum KPU menetapkan hasil Pemilu secara nasional. Artinya, jika Pasal 201 mengharuskan adanya penetapan hasil suara Pemilu secara nasional paling lambat 30 hari setelah hari pemungutan suara, atau singkatnya pada 9 Mei 2009 nanti, maka seyogyanya pidana pelanggaran Pemilu sudah harus diputus tuntas pada tanggal 4 Mei yang lalu.

Namun apa daya, hampir sebagian besar laporan dari kedua jenis pelanggaran tersebut ternyata tidak ditindaklajuti dengan baik, bahkan terkesan ditangani secara serampangan. Alih-alih mengakomodasi keberatan para peserta Pemilu, nyatanya tidak jarang dipilih jalan pendek nan mudah dengan sengaja melempar bola muntah atau memberikan “anjuran sesat” untuk mencari segala penyelesaian jenis sengketa ke hadapan meja merah Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK). Padahal, UU telah mengatur batasan tegas kewenangan penyelesaian antara jenis sengketa satu dengan lainnya.

Pada titik inilah dapat disimpulkan bahwa ternyata jenjang dan pembagian ranah penyelesaian sengketa Pemilu tidak berjalan sebagaimana mestinya. Akibatnya, sebagaimana dikhawatirkan oleh banyak pihak, MK pada akhirnya diposisikan sebagai “Mahkamah Keranjang” untuk menerima beragam jenis sengketa Pemilu. Asumsi ini boleh jadi terbukti benar, tatkala sejumlah 60 konsultasi permohonan yang telah diterima MK hingga Selasa (5/4) kemarin, justru lebih banyak mengurai kasus-kasus pelanggaran administratif dan pidana.

Pengujian Stamina

Berkaca dari pengalaman Pemilu lima tahun yang lalu, MK memang tengah mempersiapkan mekanisme yang lebih efektif dan efisien untuk menangani sengketa Pemilu 2009. Pasalnya, berdasarkan hasil monitoring dan evaluasi Pemilu, sengketa yang akan muncul diprediksi meningkat mencapai 250% hingga 400%. Apabila pada tahun 2004 MK meregistrasi 273 kasus dari 448 kasus yang diterima, maka pada tahun ini sengketa yang masuk berdasarkan Daerah Pemilihan (Dapil) dapat mencapai kisaran hingga 2.172 kasus, yang terdiri dari 77 kasus DPR, 217 kasus DPRD Provinsi, 1.843 DPRD Kabupaten, dan 33 kasus DPD, serta ditambah 2 kasus Parliamentary Threshold (PT). Sedangkan apabila permohonan dikerucutkan berdasarkan Partai Politik (44) dan Provinsi DPD (33), maka akan ditemukan 77 perkara permohonan yang dari setiap permohonannya tersebut sudah dipastikan membawa kasus yang beranak-pinak.

Di sinilah letak ujian stamina terberat bagi MK untuk memutus seluruh sengketa yang akan masuk. Sebab berdasarkan Pasal 78 huruf b UU MK, waktu yang diberikan untuk menyelesaikannya sangatlah terbatas, yaitu tidak lebih dari 30 hari. Bahkan ada tuntutan untuk memangkas waktu penyelesaian menjadi hanya 21 hari, semata-mata demi persiapan pelaksanaan Pilpres yang lebih matang. Oleh karenanya, kini penghitungan waktu penyelesaian tidak dapat lagi menggunakan sekedar ukuran hari, namun harus diubah menjadi hitungan jam dan menit.

Dalam keadaan normal, suatu perkara di MK umumnya diputuskan setelah melalui lima kali tahapan persidangan dan dua kali Rapat Permusawaratan Hakim (RPH). Sehingga untuk menyelesaikan sejumlah 77 perkara atau 2.172 kasus yang masuk, setidaknya dibutuhkan sebanyak 385 kali persidangan dan 154 kali RPH dalam kurun waktu hanya 720 jam yang kemudian harus dibagi secara rinci untuk Sidang Panel (260 jam), Rapat Panel Hakim (52 jam), Perancangan Putusan (130 jam), dan RPH (26 jam).

Dengan kata lain, untuk setiap harinya MK harus mampu mengejar target rata-rata tidak kurang dari dua belas kali persidangan guna memeriksa puluhan kasus Pemilu di dalam setiap persidangannya. Apabila mencermati kondisi demikian, maka besar kemungkinan Jaya Suprana akan menghadiahi MK sebagai calon pemegang rekor persidangan terbanyak dan mencatatnya di dalam Museum Rekor Indonesia (MURI).

Pertaruhan Demokrasi

MK yang lahir dari rahim reformasi telah diberikan mandat konstitusi untuk mengawal proses demokrasi di Indonesia, khususnya yang terkait dengan hasil Pemilu. Inilah kali kedua dalam sejarah demokrasi Indonesia, para peserta Pemilu memperoleh akses untuk melakukan legal action guna mempertahankan hak konstitusional atas perolehan hasil suara yang diraihnya. Merujuk pada banyaknya kekurangan yang terjadi selama pelaksanaan Pemilu 2009, maka banyak pihak yang kemudian menaruh harapan pada persidangan MK agar proses Pemilu yang dianggap terciderai dapat dikembalikan pada esensi dan substansinya yang mulia.

Di sinilah beban berat yang akan dipikul oleh MK, terlebih lagi dalam posisinya sebagai the last gatekeeper of democracy. Tak ayal dalam beberapa kesempatan, Hakim Konstitusi Maruarar mengumpamakan perhelatan PHPU mendatang sebagai “perang besar” (the big war), yakni perang untuk memurnikan noda-noda demokrasi dalam Pemilu.

Pada harinya, pagelaran persidangan terbuka selama 30 hari non-stop di gedung MK adalah milik publik seutuhnya. Oleh karena itu, andil dan peran serta masyarakat luas sejatinya amat diperlukan untuk turut mencermati dan menilai secara berimbang terhadap proses pencarian nilai-nilai keadilan demokratis. Dengan demikian, lebih dari sekedar untuk menutup kesempatan bagi pihak ketiga melancarkan praktik suap dan jual-beli perkara, proses persidangan yang transparan dan akuntabel dapat dimanfaatkan sebagai cara untuk meningkatkan “civic and political education” bagi warga negara.

Akhirnya, ribuan caleg dan masyarakat luas kini tinggal menunggu dikeluarkannya Penetapan KPU dalam beberapa hari ke depan. Ketika palu penetapan dijatuhkan di meja Pleno KPU, maka pada saat itulah perang besar mempertahankan kesucian demokrasi dimulai. Mampukah MK mengatasi penyelesaian ribuan kasus Pemilu dalam kurun waktu 30 hari?

Optimisme memang harus tetap dipertahankan, tetapi persiapan matang dan ikhtiar maksimal adalah kebutuhan yang saat ini amat diperlukan. Jika di masa transisi ini bangsa Indonesia kembali berhasil menyelesaikan sengketa Pemilu tanpa adanya pertempuran fisik dan pertumpahan darah, maka jalan mewujudkan negara hukum yang demokratis di masa mendatang akan semakin terbuka lebar.

* Anggota Tim Penanganan Perkara PHPU di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Tulisan ini adalah pandangan pribadi.

In the news

Several news articles are circulating this week, which are interesting from a prophetic perspective:


"Barack Obama hints at tougher line on Israel"

"Obama engineering 'most serious crisis in 61 years'"

"Lieberman Gives Iran Three Months - Or Else"


Highlights from these articles:

- Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told Italian Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi that Iran should be given three months to respond to diplomacy regarding their nuclear ambitions, and afterwards take "concrete steps" against Iran.

- Described as "blackmailing techniques" - the U.S. administration appears to be offering help with the Iran situation only if Israel agrees to a "two-state" solution and complies with U.S. plans for the Middle-East, regardless of how destructive these plans are for Israel. In the "crisis" article above, an interesting quote is found: "In other words, the new America's message to Israel is: Resist our will, and we'll allow Tehran to continue its quest for an atomic bomb to fire at you."

- Obama's National Security Advisor, James Jones, advised a European foreign minister that "unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be forceful with Israel. The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question."

Overall, it appears that the U.S. feels that Israel needs our assistance in dealing with Iran's nukes. Subsequent to this, the U.S, will demand that Israel agree to the U.S. administration's plans for the region, including Israel giving up an enormous amount of land, and land that is critical from a military perspective. Additionally, the U.S. will demand that Jerusalem becomes divided, under UN control.

The significance of these potential peace talks and progress in the Middle-East is quite simple.

First - the bible tells us that there will be no real peace in the Middle-East until Jesus returns and sets up his 1,000 year reign on earth. There will be a brief period of false peace as "confirmed" by the anti-christ (Danial 9:27). The problem with the peace plan, as confirmed by the anti-christ, is the following scripture, where Paul discussed the beginnings of the Tribulation (also referenced in Daniel 9:27) in 1 Thessalonians 5:

"...for you know very well that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. When people are saying, 'Peace and safety', destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman."

The antichrist will appear to have finally created peace in the Middle-East, and that will lead to global cries of "peace and safety"....However, as detailed in the book of Revelation, this false peace will quickly end in "destruction" coming on them "suddenly".

Second - We watch the progress of a peace plan in the Middle-East, because we know that ultimately, only the anti-christ will step forward with a definitive plan which "confirms" peace in the region. According to bible prophecy, the Church will have been removed prior to this event (1 Thessalonians 1:10, 5:4-9, Revelation 3:10, etc). Therefore, the closer we are to a peace plan in the region, the closer we are to completion of the prophecies given which describe the "catching up" or "gathering up" of the Church (1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15).

Third - if the U.S. continues along its path of demanding that Israel give up more and more land, in effect, weaking Israel and making their very survival tenuous, then I believe we are in significant danger of encountering the scriptural warning given directly by God in Genesis 12:3.

Things are moving rapidly right now. As previously mentioned, there is a flurry of diplomatic activity scheduled for the month of May. The Obama administration has now seemingly placed Middle-East peace discussions at the forefront of their agenda.

Even if misdirected, ultimately, thats good for the body of believers.

Jesus will come for His Bride. Its a promise.

The Gathering Storm

A commentary which is focused on Israel and the Middle-East is worth repeating in its full form (below). Tom Mountain, a columnist for The Jewish Advocate, has written a timely piece regarding the situation between Israel and Iran, with appropriate historical references (original article here):





The Gathering Storm
by Tom Mountain

Iran's nuclear program appears to be on schedule.

"It's 1938 and Iran is Germany." So declared Benjamin Netanyahu. That the Israeli Prime Minister would offer such a chilling historical analogy should leave little doubt as to the grave implications of Iran proceeding on its
As a ruse, he claimed that he only wanted self-determination.
militaristic course, as well as the imperative need to confront that threat before it's too late.

In retrospect, 1938 was a pivotal year, the last chance for the Allies, namely Britain and France, to have stopped Hitler's Germany before it began its blitzkrieg for world conquest, and its genocidal campaign against the Jews. Germany had not yet reached the point where it was capable of launching an attack against its primary foes, France and Britain. It had just annexed Austria in a predictable, bloodless coup and prepared for its next target, Czechoslovakia.

Hitler knew that, in order to conquer Europe, he first had to force Czechoslovakia into submission, preferably without a military invasion. Yet Hitler not only wanted to eliminate Czechoslovakia as a military threat, but ultimately as a nation. As a ruse, he claimed that he only wanted self-determination for the Germans of the Sudetenland, hoping to compel the gullible leaders of France and Britain to acquiesce and sell out the Czechs.

By threatening war if Czechoslovakia didn't cede the Sudetenland to Germany, Hitler effectively blackmailed the idealistic, yet hopelessly naive British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, into forcing the insufferably timid Czech President, Edward Benes, to give up the strategic Sudetenland. After all, Chamberlain reasoned, this area was mostly populated by Germans who only wanted self-determination, and besides, the German leadership promised they had no more territorial demands. Benes, a weakling to the core, refused to go it alone and stand up to the Germans, despite his formidable Czech army, while Neville Chamberlain desperately wanted peace at all costs, and was willing to appease Hitler no matter what the cost. Even if it meant sacrificing a democratic ally.

After 1938 it was too late. By the spring of 1940 Hitler had defeated France and prepared to destroy Britain.

If today is eerily reminiscent of 1938, and Iran is the successor to Nazi Germany, then Barack Obama is Neville Chamberlain and the West Bank is the Sudetenland.

To characterize the new president as anti-Israel is perhaps unfair. He is not anti-Israel in the sense that he bodes ill for the Jewish state, but neither is he inclined to adamantly support Israel against its enemies, which also happen to be the enemies of the United States. The president is so devoted to the premise of "peace at all costs" he'd sell out both the Jewish state and, in the long run, the United States, in his quest to accommodate a rogue nation that desires the destruction of both.

The leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made no secret of his desire to destroy Israel. To do this he needs to acquire tactical nuclear weapons. He already has the missiles, he just needs the bombs. To get them he needs time, at most a few years, to continue unhindered to develop the atomic bomb. To do that, he needs the United States to be passive while Iran builds a nuclear arsenal. This also means that the Americans must prevent Israel from attacking Iran.

So Ahmadinejad will need to convince Barack Obama of Iran's peaceful intentions,
The Iranian nuclear program appears to be right on schedule.
which shouldn't be too difficult since this president is already predisposed towards striving for a peaceful outcome with any nation, be it Cuba, North Korea or Iran. All Iran has to do is declare its commitment to peace, then reinforce President Obama's belief that if only Israel gave up the West Bank to the Palestinians the Middle East would have "peace in our time." Iran will also need to count on the novice president to ignore or trivialize all of that on-the-record rhetoric from the Iranian leadership about how they want to destroy Israel, then the United States, in order to usher in a worldwide Islamic caliphate or die in the process.

So far, it's working. The Iranian nuclear program appears to be right on schedule. As expected, Barack Obama is cooperating, reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. But Benjamin Netanyahu is not Edward Benes and Israel is not Czechoslovakia. Netanyahu is the right leader at the right time in Israel's history. He will not permit the United States to sell out Israel for some mythical guarantee of peace from Iran. He will go it alone and neutralize the Iranian threat before it's too late.

And a second Holocaust will be averted.

Rumors of war

Finally, the new administration has agreed to meet with Israeli officials. There will be a series of meetings during the month of May; something I find interesting because of the context. It looks like the month of May is being devoted to the Middle-East, as a series of meetings will take place between the Obama administration and various leaders from the region. Why now?

The context is interesting - at the same time that we see an acute focus on the Middle-East, we see many articles from the region pointing to ongoing war preparations:

"Hamas Army Preparing for New War"
"IDF staged drills over Gibraltar, in preparation for Iran strike"
"Arrow operators prepare for Iran threat"

Collective quotes from these three articles:

"Air Force reservists who operate the Arrow and Patriot missile defense systems have recently begun spending one day a week on duty to sharpen their skills, amid fears that in a conflict with Iran, dozens of long-range missiles would be fired at Israel."

"We are working hard to be ready for the Iranian threat" a top IAF officer said, "We are preparing for barrages, split warheads and other surprises..."

"The fact that the drills were held 3,800 kilometers away from Israel 'confirms that the Israel Defense Forces is making concrete preparations' to attack Iran over its refusal to cooperate with the international community..."

"We would not make a threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act."

Interestingly, suddenly the Middle-East is now in focus for the White House. That may not be good for Israel however. It is clear that Obama, as a continuation of the Bush policies will demand that Israel give up a substantial amount of land, including the West Bank: (read here).

Additionally, Benjamin Netanyahu fears that Obama will make further demands which will further weaken Israel (read here). According to this article, a number of aides to Mr. Netanyahu will meet with senior officials from the Obama administration and officials in Europe, for the same purposes.

It would appear that the Iranian issue is pushing leaders to get a handle on Iran and their nuclear threats. Speculation leads one to wonder if this could be the last flurry of activity, in a last minute attempt to prevent Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Its hard to know - but its clear that May will bring the Middle-East to the top of the agenda for the White House and for leaders in the Middle-East.

The outcome from these meetings will be very interesting from a prophetic perspective. We'll be watching closely for any decisions made, and the general rhetoric coming from these leaders.

Whatever the outcome - God is also watching. Genesis 12 is absolutely worth repeating here, as God's word regarding Israel is absolute:

"I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse" (Genesis 12:3)

God repeated the same exact message to Isaac, regarding the land of Israel and her people:

"May those who curse you be cursed and those who bless you be blessed" (Genesis 27:29)

God also confirmed His absolute committment to Israel's land:

"I will make you a communities of peoples, and I will give this land as an EVERLASTING POSSESSION to your descendants after you." (Genesis 48:4. emphasis mine).

It is clear biblically, that God will not find favor with those who attempt to give away Israeli land. That land was granted to Israel, by God, in an unconditional covenant, confirmed by the passages in Genesis 15.

Of course, political leaders involved in the Middle-East are not looking to the Bible for any direction in these negotiations. As usual, "man" believes that he can make certian determinations regarding Israel, but God has a history of intervening when the time is right. He will do so again.

The month of May could be very interesting.

We'll be watching. So will God.

Perubahan Iklim dalam Perlindungan Konstitusi (Bagian II)

PERUBAHAN IKLIM DAN PERLINDUNGAN TERHADAP LINGKUNGAN:
SUATU KAJIAN BERPERSPEKTIF HUKUM KONSTITUSI
Oleh: Pan Mohamad Faiz, S.H., M.C.L.

(Sambungan Tulisan dari BAGIAN PERTAMA: Baca Sebelumnya atau Download Makalah dalam Format PDF)

2. Ekokrasi (Ecocracy)

Selain Indonesia, hak-hak serta kewajiban konstitusional terkait dengan lingkungan hidup juga terdapat di dalam berbagai konstitusi negara-negara dunia, misalnya Afrika Selatan (1996), Angola (1992), Armenia (1995), Belanda (1983), Bhutan (2008), Brasil (1988), Chili (1980), Ekuador (2008), Filipina (1987), Ghana (1992), India (1976), Korea Selatan (1987), Nepal (2007), Perancis (2006), Portugal (1976), Spanyol (1978), dan lain sebagainya.

Dari sejumlah konstitusi negara dunia tersebut, menurut Jimly Asshiddiqie terdapat dua negara yang dapat dikatakan memiliki perlindungan kuat terhadap lingkungan hidup, yaitu Perancis dan Ekuador. Negara Perancis memasukan Piagam Lingkungan Hidup 2004 (Charter for the Environment of 2004) secara utuh ke dalam Pembukaan Konstitusinya, sehingga konsekuensinya adalah seluruh batang tubuh Konstitusi Perancis haruslah bernafaskan nilai-nilai dan norma ketentuan yang pro-lingkungan.[1]

Lebih hebat lagi yaitu Konstitusi Ekuador yang memberikan hak terhadap lingkungan sebagai subyek hukum sederajat dengan hak asasi manusia. Oleh karenanya banyak pihak yang menyandangkan istilah “The Real Green Constitution” kepada negara Ekuador. Kelima ketentuan Konstitusi terkait dengan lingkungan hidup yang terdapat dalam Konstitusi Ekuador adalah sebagai berikut:[2]

Pasal 1: “Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution. Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution”.

Pasal 2: “Nature has the right to an integral restoration. This integral restoration is independent of the obligation on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people and the collectives that depends on the natural systems. In the cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including the ones caused by the exploitation on non renewable resources, the State will establish the most efficient mechanisms for the restoration, and will adopt the adequate measures to eliminate or mitigate the harmful environmental consequences”.

Pasal 3: “The State will motivate natural and juridical persons as well as collectives to protect nature; it will promote respect towards all the elements that an ecosystem”.

Pasal 4: “The State will apply precaution and restriction measures in all the activities that can can lead to the extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the permanent alteration of the natural cycles”.

Pasal 5: “The persons, people, communities and nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing”.

Belum lagi apabila kita melihat pada tataran Konstitusi di tingkat regional dan global,[3] kini juga sedang diwacanakan untuk dimasukannya norma-norma lingkungan hidup di dalam konstitusi tersebut. Sebagai contoh adalah Konstitusi Uni Eropa pada Pasal II-97 tentang “Environmental Protection” yang berbunyi:

“A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.”[4]

Terhadap gambaran di atas, maka kini di berbagai belahan dunia muncul gagasan yang dinamakan ekokrasi (ecocracy). Embrio global ecocracy pertama kali hadir dalam the Brundtland Report. Menurut Henry Skolimowski, konsepsi ekokrasi ini lebih pada bentuk pengakuan terhadap kekuatan alam dan kehidupan yang ada di dalamnya, pemahaman mengenai keterbatasan lingkungan, elemen kerjasama dengan alam, serta yang terpenting yakni menciptakan sistem ekologi yang berkelanjutan dengan penghormatan terhadap bumi berserta isinya dan tidak melakukan perampasan secara eksploitatif tanpa perhitungan.[5]

Ekokrasi juga bertujuan untuk menciptakan sistem berkelanjutan yang dapat mendukung dan membawa kebaikan terhadap seluruh makhluk yang ada di dunia, baik yang hidup sekarang ini maupun yang akan datang. Secara sederhana, konsep ekokrasi ini merupakan perluasan terhadap keterbatasan dari konsep demokrasi. Selain demokrasi tidak mungkin lagi dapat dibatasi untuk suatu wilayah atau negara tertentu saja, demokrasi juga harus dapat memastikan bahwa pelaksanaannya di masing-masing negara tidak akan membahayakan negara lain ataupun melukai alam itu sendiri, baik secara langsung maupun tidak langsung.

Dengan kata lain, Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel dalam “Living in an Ecocracy” menggambarkan ekokrasi sebagai sistem aktivitas yang diukur melalui standar-standar internasional mengenai perlindungan terhadap lingkungan dan alam. Artinya, konsep ini ditujukan untuk mengintegrasikan kembali kehidupan antara makhluk hidup di dunia, yaitu manusia, hewan, dan tumbuhan dalam lingkungan yang ramah alam.[6]

Namun demikian, mendesaknya pembentukan konsep ekokrasi secara internasional menurut Wolfgang Sachs bukan tanpa halangan.[7] Oleh karenanya, para penggiat lingkungan harus secara terus-menerus dan bertahap memberikan pencerahan terhadap gagasan tersebut. Salah satu cara yang paling efektif adalah dengan menjalankan “green policy” yang dimuat secara formal melalui berbagai kebijakan baik oleh organisasi di tingkat internasional maupun pemerintahan resmi di tingkat nasional.

3. Juristokrasi (Juristocracy)

Menurut Andi Hamzah, penegakan hukum yang cocok dengan kondisi Indonesia meliputi segi preventif dan represif, terutama yang memiliki keterlibatan pemerintah untuk turut aktif meningkatkan kesadaran hukum masyarakat. Lebih lanjut dikatakan bahwa penegakan hukum lingkungan sangatlah rumit, karena hukum lingkungan berdiri di atas titik pertemuan pelbagai bidang hukum, seperti administratif, perdata, dan pidana, bahkan kadangkala sampai menyentuh juga hukum pajak, pertanahan, tata negara, dan hukum internasional baik publik maupun privat.[8]

Dalam kaitannya dengan penegakan hukum yang disampaikan oleh Andi Hamzah di atas, maka peranan konstitusi sebagai “langit” dari segala bidang hukum nasional menjadi teramat penting, sebab konstitusi merupakan titik puncak tertinggi piramida aturan bernegara dari segala hukum yang berlaku di dalam negeri. Dalam teori stufenufbau der rechtsordnung, Hans Nawiasky menyebutnya dengan istilah “staatsgrundgesetz”.[9]

Dalam konteks tersebut, konstitusionalisasi norma lingkungan hidup di dalam UUD 1945 dapat menjadi salah satu cara untuk menegakkan hukum baik secara preventif maupun represif. Adanya norma perlindungan terhadap lingkungan di dalam konstitusi secara otomatis akan menjadi pedoman tidak hanya dalam penyusunan undang-undang organiknya namun juga segala tindakan dan macam laku dari para pemangku kebijakan, baik itu pemerintah, pihak swasta, ataupun masyarakat madani (civil society).

Apabila hal tersebut ternyata tetap disimpangi, maka rumusan penegakan hukum yang kemudian berlaku adalah tindakan represif terhadap produk perundang-undangan atau tindakan yang dianggap melanggar atau bertentangan dengan konstitusi (constitutional violation).

Adalah buah reformasi dan perubahan UUD 1945 yang menciptakan berdirinya Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai lembaga negara yang berfungsi sebagai pengadilan ketatanegaraan sekaligus sebagai implementasi mekanisme checks and balances antarcabang kekuasaan negara. Berdasarkan Pasal 24C UUD 1945 juncto Pasal 10 ayat (1) huruf a, Mahkamah Konstitusi memiliki kewenangan untuk menguji undang-undang terhadap undang-undang dasar atau biasa dikenal dengan sebutan constitutional review.

Inilah kali pertamanya undang-undang dapat dimajukan ke muka persidangan untuk diuji konstitusionalitasnya, setelah gagasan ini sempat muncul-tenggelam sejak tahun 1945.[10] Konsekuensi hukumnya bahwa apabila ada undang-undang yang dianggap bertentangan dengan norma-norma konstitusi yang tercantum pada Pasal 28H ayat (1) dan Pasal 33 ayat (4) UUD 1945 perihal perlindungan terhadap lingkungan sebagaimana telah diuraikan sebelumnya, maka undang-undang tersebut dapat dibatalkan keberlakuannya jika terbukti bertentangan dengan UUD 1945.

Ran Hirschl mengistilahkan mekanisme dan tren pengambilan keputusan penting oleh para Hakim di pengadilan yang turut mempengaruhi jalannya roda pemerintahan dan kebijakan negara oleh karena paham konstitusionalisme baru yg sedang berkembang di negara tersebut dengan konsep “Juristokrasi” (Juristocracy).[11]

Berkaca pada perkembangan dan peran pengadilan di negara-negara lain, khususnya negara maju yang menerapkan sistem common law, maka dengan mudah akan kita temukan betapa pengadilan memiliki andil besar dan strategis dalam membuat keputusan-keputusan sejarah bagi pembangunan negaranya, bahkan tidak jarang harus berseberangan dengan kebijakan yang dikeluarkan oleh Pemerintah yang sah karena dianggap tidak sesuai dengan konstitusinya.

Begitu pula dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) di Indonesia, secara bertahap setiap tahunnya, permohonan pengujian undang-undang terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945, baik secara formil maupun materiil, terus meningkat. Menariknya, pertimbangan hukum yang menjadi alur dan kerangka berpikir sebelum akhirnya jatuh kepada amar putusan, menjadi tafsir resmi konstitusi oleh MK selaku the final interpreter of the constitution yang dapat dijadikan landasan penguat bagi perlindungan terhadap lingkungan berperspektif konstitusi.

Dengan demikian, kajian hukum tata negara yang awalnya hanya sebatas teoritik di atas kertas, maka kini setelah terbentuknya MK berubah secara perlahan menjadi teoris-praktis yang menyebabkan tumbuh suburnya kajian konstitusi di hampir seluruh Fakultas Hukum di Indonesia. Adapun beberapa putusan yang terkait dengan issu lingkungan hidup, di antaranya yaitu:

Pertama, dalam putusan Perkara Nomor 002/PUU-I/2003 bertanggal 15 Desember 2004 disebutkan bahwa setiap interpretasi terhadap suatu ketentuan dalam Pasal-Pasal UUD 1945 harus selalu mengacu kepada tujuan hidup berbangsa dan bernegara sebagaimana yang digariskan dalam Pembukaan UUD 1945 tersebut. Tafsiran inilah yang melatarbelakangi pertimbangan mengapa Alinea Keempat Pembukaan UUD 1945 dapat memperkuat posisi dan kedudukan norma lingkungan di dalam Pasal 28H UUD 1945.

Dalam Putusan yang sama pada halaman 112 ditegaskan bahwa terkait dengan Pasal 33 ayat (3) dan ayat (4) UUD 1945, negara c.q. pemerintah harus memanfaatkan sumber-sumber kekayaan dengan tetap memelihara sebagaimana mestinya. Pemanfaatan tersebut dilakukan dengan cara mengatur (regelendaad), mengurus (bestuursdaad), mengelola (beheersdaad), dan mengawasi (toezichthoudensdaad) cabang-cabang produksi yang penting bagi negara dan/atau menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak untuk tujuan sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat.[12]

Kedua, MK dalam Perkara Nomor 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 dan Perkara Nomor 008/PUU-III/2005 bertanggal 19 Juli 2005 mengenai pengujian Sumber Daya Air (SDA) memuat pertimbangan hukum bahwa aspek hak asasi yang harus dijamin oleh negara, yaitu penghormatan, perlindungan dan pemenuhan, tidak hanya menyangkut kebutuhan sekarang tetapi harus juga dijamin kesinambungannya untuk masa depan karena secara langsung menyangkut eksistensi manusia. Oleh karenanya, negara juga perlu terlibat secara aktif dalam perencanaan pengelolaan sumber daya air yang tujuannya untuk menjamin ketersediaan air bagi masyarakat. Perencanaan tersebut menyangkut banyak hal, di antaranya adalah usaha konservasi sumber air, yang pada dasarnya merupakan campur tangan manusia dalam siklus hidrologis, agar air tersedia dengan cukup pada saat air diperlukan oleh manusia.[13]

Ketiga, pertimbangan hukum dalam Putusan Nomor 013/PUU-III/2005 bertanggal 12 September 2005 menegaskan bahwa politik hukum kehutaan Indonesia adalah dalam rangka pelaksanaan hak-hak asasi manusia Indonesia sekarang dan generasi yang akan datang untuk mendapatkan lingkungan hidup yang sehat dan dalam rangka implementasi pembangunan nasional yang berkesinambungan (sustainable development) sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 33 ayat (4) UUD 1945, khususnya di bidang pembangunan kehutanan dan lingkungan hidup.

Dalam putusan tersebut MK juga menegaskan bahwa peranan negara dengan hak menguasai atas bumi, air, udara, dan kekayaan alam yang terkandung di dalamnya, termasuk hak untuk mengatur, mengusahakan, memelihara dan mengawasi, dimaksudkan agar terbangun lingkungan yang baik dan berkelanjutan (sustainable development) yang ditujukan kepada semua pemangku kepentingan (stakeholders) yang tidak boleh dikurangi atau bahkan diabaikan. Akhirnya MK juga menyuarakan betapa pentingnya peran negara, masyarakat, dan perusahaan yang bergerak dalam ekploitasi dan pemanfaatan sumber daya alam untuk ikut bertanggung jawab baik secara moral maupun hukum terhadap dampak negatif atas kerusakan lingkungan tersebut.[14]

Keempat, perkara yang terakhir kali diputuskan oleh MK yaitu Perkara Nomor 021/PUU-III/2005 bertanggal 21 April 2009 perihal uji materi ketentuan kewajiban Tanggung Jawab Sosial dan Lingkungan (TJSL) dalam UU PT. Dalam pertimbangannya MK menuliskan bahwa TJSL merupakan kebijakan negara yang menjadi tanggung jawab bersama untuk bekerjasama (to cooperate) antara negara, pelaku bisnis, perusahaan, dan masyarakat. Bukan sebaliknya untuk mencari lubang-lubang (loopholes) kelemahan terhadap ketentuan hukum yang kemudian dieksploitasi untuk menghindari (to evade) tanggung jawab tersebut.

TJSL merupakan affirmative regulation yang menurut argumentasi aliran hukum alam bukan saja menuntut untuk adanya kepatuhan moral dan spirit untuk bekerjasama dan bukan sekedar mematuhi atau menghindarinya atau bahkan mengeksploitasi kelemahan-kelemahan untuk memperoleh keuntungan dari tidak dilaksanakannya ketentuan tersebut manakala tindakan tersebut akan memperbesar risiko yang harus ditanggung terhadap kehidupan manusia baik pada masa sekarang maupun pada masa yang akan datang (just saving principle).[15]

D. SIMPULAN DAN SARAN

Sebelum mengakhiri tulisan ini, Penulis hendak memberikan beberapa saran sebagai pewacanaan perlindungan terhadap lingkungan di masa yang akan datang melalui kacamatan dan hasil kajian berperspektif hukum konstitusi.

Pertama, meskipun UUD 1945 sudah mencantumkan beberapa ketentuan terkait dengan lingkungan hidup, akan tetapi apabila dibandingkan dengan konstitusi negara-negara dunia lainnya, Indonesia masih dapat dikatakan sebagai negara yang tidak terlalu tegas mengatur konstitusionalisasi prinsip-prinsip lingkungan hidup di dalam konstitusinya. Kiranya dalam kesempatan amandemen UUD 1945 yang kelima, perlu untuk diformulasikan norma-norma perlindungan terhadap lingkungan dan hak asasi manusia yang lebih kuat lagi dengan alasan-alasan dan dampak negatif atas permasalahan lingkungan sebagaimana telah diuraikan secara panjang-lebar di dalam makalah ini.

Bahkan sudah seharusnya konstitusionalisasi norma lingkungan hidup di dalam konstitusi dibuat secara terpisah dan tidak lagi digabungkan dengan bagian lainnya yang mengesankan lingkungan adalah faktor subsidair di bawah faktor ekonomi atau hanya sekedar untuk dieksploitasi demi keuntungan dan pertumbuhan ekonomi. Perlindungan terhadap lingkungan seharusnya dapat dibaca dari perspektif hak asasi manusia.

Oleh karena issu permasalahan lingkungan dan khususnya perubahan iklim adalah issu bersama sekaligus menjadi kepentingan bersama seluruh warga negara, maka sudah seyogyanya penguatan norma lingkungan di dalam konstitusi memperoleh posisi yang sentral, karena tidak mengandung kepentingan politis-pragmatis dari kelompok atau golongan tertentu.

Lebih lanjut, penafsiran konstitusinya pun pada saat penyusunan konstitusionalisasi norma lingkungan hidup secara derivatif harus disimpan dan disiapkan secara cermat, sehingga akan terdapat standard dan parameter untuk menjelaskan lebih lanjut frasa-frasa khusus terkait lingkungan apabila nantinya diperlukan.

Kedua, mekanisme pengujian konstitusionalitas yang ada dalam sistem hukum dan ketatanegaraan kita barulah sebatas produk undang-undang saja. Terhadap produk peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah undang-undang tidak terdapat mekanisme untuk pengujian konstitusionalitasnya. Dengan demikian akan menjadi amat disayangkan apabila saran nomor pertama berhasil dilaksanakan, namun dalam kenyataannya mekanisme uji konstitusionalitas masih setengah hati.

Sebagai perumpamaan, misalnya, Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 2 Tahun 2008 tentang Penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak yang Berasal dari Penggunaan Kawasan Hutan untuk Pembangunan di Luar Kegiatan Kehutanan yang dikeluarkan pada tanggal 4 Februari 2008, tidak mungkin dapat diuji konstitusionalitasnya apabila mekanisme pengujian yang ada masih seperti sekarang ini. Padahal menurut kajian WALHI, PP tersebut berpotensi menghancurkan 11,4 juta hektar hutan lindung Indonesia yang tersisa.

Di masa yang akan datang perlu juga dipertimbangkan untuk menempatkan kewenangan pengujian konstitusionalitas seluruh produk peraturan perundang-undangan di bawah satu atap agar tercipta integrasi sistem perundang-undangan yang sejalan dengan UUD 1945 secara vertikal-berjenjang. Ketiadaan mekanisme pengaduan konstitusional (constitutional complaint) juga dapat menjadi penghambat tatkala terdapat warga negara atau sekelompok warga negara yang hendak maju ke muka persidangan dengan alasan dirugikan hak konstitusionalnya akibat rusaknya lingkungan sekitar disebabkan pencemaran yang dilakukan oleh pejabat pemerintah.

Ketiga, dengan atau tidak tercapainya saran pertama dan/atau kedua, sosialisasi terhadap konstitusionalisasi norma lingkungan hidup teramat penting untuk selalu dilakukan. Setidak-tidaknya pengingkatan pengetahuan konstitusi lingkungan dapat diberikan kepada kalangan penentu kebijakan negara untuk setiap level pemerintahan, tidak terkecuali bagi para hakim (jurists).

Lebih-lebih, para pejabat negara dan pemerintahan telah bersumpah untuk melaksanakan isi konstitusi dengan sungguh-sungguh. Dengan meningkatnya kesadaran ekologis (ecology awareness) di antara para pengambil kebijakan diharapkan dapat turut memberikan pencerahan kepada warga negara secara bertahap dan menyeluruh. Sehingga ketika terjadi benturan antara kepentingan kelestarian lingkungan dengan kepentingan pertumbuhan ekonomi, maka para pengambil kebijakan dapat secara sadar memilih kepentingan kelestarian lingkungan sebagai prioritas utama dan pertamanya.

Keempat, berdasarkan teori pemerintahan dikatakan bahwa dalam perkembangannya negara-negara bangsa (nation-states) kini haruslah berkolaborasi dan bekerjasama dengan para aktor di luar pemerintahan untuk meraih tujuan bernegaranya. Kecenderungan demikian semakin dibutuhkan tatkala umat manusia berbicara mengenai permasalahan di level lingkungan global, khususnya perubahan iklim, dimana negara-negara bangsa haruslah berperan dan bertanggung jawab baik secara sendiri maupun bersama-sama dengan korporasi transnasional (transnational corporation) dan organisasi non-pemerintah (non-governmental organization).

Dalam konteks ilmu politik dan hubungan internasional, negara-negara dunia pada era globalisasi seperti sekarang ini haruslah juga meningkatkan cara kerja melalui sistem jaringan. Oleh karenanya, kordinasi yang optimal di antara para aktor negara harus dilakukan melalui sistem hierarki pemerintahan, kompetisi pasar, dan jaringan hibrida, tanpa harus menyerahkan kedaulatan negara di berbagai bidang kehidupan kepada pihak-pihak tertentu. Inilah yang kemudian disebut oleh Williamson (1996) sebagai "Mechanism of Governance".[16]

E. PENUTUP

Ketika negara-negara di berbagai belahan dunia telah memasukkan ketentuan lingkungan ke dalam konstitusinya sejak lama, Indonesia baru menciptakan undang-undang payung mengenai perlindungan terhadap lingkungan hidup pada tahun 1982.[17]

Bersyukurlah kini bahwa setelah adanya perubahan UUD 1945, norma lingkungan hidup telah dikonstitusionalisasikan. Memang sudah seharusnya Indonesia bukan lagi memiliki sekedar “undang-undang payung”, tetapi haruslah “undang-undang langit”, yaitu ketentuan lingkungan hidup yang masuk di dalam batang tubuh Konstitusi sebagai dasar dari segala dasar peraturan perundang-undangan, kebijakan, dan tindakan yang dilakukan oleh negara dan segenap warganya atas kerangka berpijak yang pro-lingkungan.

Setelah dunia teryakini oleh Al Gore akan bahaya serius yang mengancam umat manusia akibat rusaknya lingkungan hidup,[18] kini dalam buku terbarunya “Hot, Flat and Crowded”, Thomas L. Friedman mengumandangkan strategi “Geo-Greenism” untuk mengantisipasi dampak serius dari pemanasan global dan perubahan iklim dengan batas waktu akhir tahun 2050. Friedman secara jelas dan tegas menyampaikan betapa pentingnya dilakukan Revolusi Hijau (Green Revolution) dengan berulang kali memperkenalkan istilah Green President, a Green New Deal, dan the Greenest Generation.[19]

Dalam suatu diskursus mengenai politik hijau (green politics), Andrew Dobson membedakan cara yang tepat antara dark-green dan light-green untuk mengatasai permasalahan lingkungan dengan mempertimbangkan berbagai faktor, seperti sistem pemerintahan, gaya hidup, komunitas, insentif fiskal, kewarganegaraan ekologikal, serta status dan kelas sosial. Namun pada akhirnya, Dobson menekankan pentingnya mengambil momentum untuk menentukan langkah radikal dalam politik hijau sebelum akhirnya umat manusia terlambat mengatasi permasalahan lingkungan yang semakin tidak terkendalikan.[20]

Meskipun berdasarkan Pasal 28I ayat (4) UUD 1945 ditentukan bahwa negara, terutama pemerintah dalam hubungannya dengan kewajiban yang ditimbulkan oleh hak asasi manusia, diwajibkan untuk menghormati (to respect), melindungi (to protect), dan memenuhinya (to fulfill), maka kita semuanya pun sebagai bagian dari umat manusia yang memiliki kedudukan sama di hadapan sang Pencipta harus pula mengemban kewajiban dan tanggung untuk secara bersama dan bahu-membahu mengatasi berbagai permasalahan lingkungan, khususnya perubahan iklim.

Kini sudah tibalah waktunya bagi segenap bangsa Indonesia untuk melakukan perubahan konstitusional yang mendasar untuk menyusun kembali tatanan kehidupan berbangsa, bernegara, dan bermasyarakat dengan mengedepankan nilai-nilai dan prinsip perlindungan terhadap lingkungan. Jika bukan generasi saat ini yang melakukannya, maka tidak mustahil bangsa Indonesia akan kehilangan generasi penerusnya pada masa yang akan datang.

***

CATATAN KAKI

[1] Lihat The French National Assembly, Constitution of French, tersedia pada http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp#PREAMBLE, diakses terakhir kali tanggal 23 April 2009.

[2] University of Richmond, Constitution of Equador, tersedia pada http://cofinder.richmond.edu/ country.php, diakses terakhir kali tanggal 23 April 2009.

[3] Daniel M. Bodansky, “Is There an International Environmntal Constitution?”, dalam Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, University of Georgia School of Law, Oktober, 2008.

[4] Europe, A Constitution for Europe, tersedia pada http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/index_en.htm, diakses terakhir kali tanggal 23 April 2009.

[5] P2P Philosophical Foundation, “The Eco-Philosophy of Henry Skolimowski”, dalam Michel Bauwens, Foundation for Peer to Peer Alternatives Newsletter Issue 67, 2005.

[6] Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Living in an Ecocracy, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, 1999.

[7] Lihat Wolfang Sachs, “Towards Global Ecocracy?”, The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, 1992.

[8] Andi Hamzah, Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2005, hlm. 49-50.

[9] Lihat Hamid A. Attamimi, Peranan Keputusan Presiden Republik Indonesia dalam Penyelenggaraan Pemerintah Negara: Suatu Studi Analisis Mengenai Keputusan Presiden yang Berfungsi Pengaturan dalam Kurun Waktu Pelita I – Pelita IV, Disertasi Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Pascasarjana Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, 1990, hlm. 287.

[10] Moh. Mahfud MD., “The Role of the Constitutional Court in the Development of Democracy in Indonesia”, makalah dipresentasikan dalam the World Conference on Constitutional Justice di Cape Town, Afrika Selatan pada tanggal 23-24 Januari 2009.

[11] Ran Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism, Harvard University Press, 2005.

[12] Lihat Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Perkara Nomor 002/PUU-I/2003, diputus tanggal 15 Desember 2004.

[13] Lihat Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Perkara Nomor 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 dan Putusan Perkara Nomor 008/PUU-III/2005, diputus tanggal 19 Juli 2005.

[14] Lihat Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Nomor 013/PUU-III/2005, diputus tanggal 12 September 2005.

[15] Lihat Mahkamah Konstitusi, Perkara Nomor 021/PUU-III/2005, diputus tanggal 21 April 2009.

[16] Lihat O.E. Williamson, The Mechanism of Governance, Oxford University Press, New York dan Oxford, 1996.

[17] Lihat Undang-Undang Nomor 4 Tahun 1982 tentang Ketentuan-Ketentuan Pokok Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup sebagaimana telah diubah dan diperbarui dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 23 Tahun 1997 tentang Pengelolaan Lingkung Hidup (UUPLH).

[18] Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, Rodale Books, 2006.

[19] Lihat Thomas L. Friedman, Hot, Flat and Crowded, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.

[20] Andrew Dobson, Green Political Thought, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2007, hlm. 147.

*****

DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Attamimi, Hamid A., Peranan Keputusan Presiden Republik Indonesia dalam Penyelenggaraan Pemerintah Negara: Suatu Studi Analisis Mengenai Keputusan Presiden yang Berfungsi Pengaturan dalam Kurun Waktu Pelita I – Pelita IV, Disertasi Ilmu Hukum Fakultas Pascasarjana Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta, 1990.

Asshiddiqie, Jimly, Konstitusi & Konstitusionalisme Indonesia, Konstitusi Press, Jakarta, 2005.

___________, Jimly, Pokok-Pokok Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia Pasca Reformasi, Bhuana Ilmu Populer (BIP), Jakarta, 2007.

Bodansky, Daniel M., “Is There an International Environmntal Constitution?”, dalam Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, University of Georgia School of Law, Oktober, 2008.

Djajadiningrat, Surna T., Jurnal Hukum Lingkungan, Tahun I No. 1/1994, ICEL, Jakarta.

Dobson, Andrew, Green Political Thought, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2007.

Erwin, Muhamad, Hukum Lingkungan dalam Sistem Kebijaksanaan Pembangunan Lingkungan Hidup, Refika Aditama, Bandung, 2008.

Faiz, Pan Mohamad, Human Rights Protection and Constitutional Review: A Basic Foundation of Sustainable Development in Indonesia, makalah dipresentasikan pada ISSM 2008 di Delft, Belanda pada tanggal 13 Mei 2007.

Finger, Matthias, “Which Governance for Sustainable Development? An Organizational and Institutional Perspective”, dalam Jacob Park, Ken Conca, dan Matthias Finger, eds., The Crisis of Global Environmental Governance: Towards a New Political Economy of Sustainability, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2006.

Friedman, Thomas L., Hot, Flat and Crowded, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.

Gore, Al An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, Rodale Books, 2006.

Gunningham, Neil dan Peter Grabosky, Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy, Oxford Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University Press, 2004.

Hamzah, Andi, Penegakan Hukum Lingkungan, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2005.

Hirschl, Ran, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism, Harvard University Press, 2005.

Khitoliya, R.K., Environment Protection and the Law, A.P.H. Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 2002.

Larderel, Jacqueline Aloisi de, Living in an Ecocracy, United Nations Environment Programme, Paris, 1999.

Mahfud MD. Moh., Politik Hukum di Indonesia, LP3S, Jakarta, 1998.

__________, Moh., “The Role of the Constitutional Court in the Development of Democracy in Indonesia”, makalah dipresentasikan dalam the World Conference on Constitutional Justice di Cape Town, Afrika Selatan pada tanggal 23-24 Januari 2009.

McBeath, Jerry dan Jonathan Rosenberg, Comparative Environmental Politics, Springer, 2006.

McGoldrick, Dominic, “Sustainable Development and Human Rights: An Integrated Conception”, dalam The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 45, No. 4, Oktober, 1996.

Murdiyarso, Daniel, Protokol Kyoto: Implikasonya bagi Negara Berkembang, Penerbit Buku Kompas, Jakarta, 2003.

___________, Sepuluh Tahun Perjalanan Negosiasi Konvensi Perubahan Iklim, Penerbit Buku Kompas, Jakarta, 2003.

National Assessments Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the United States, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.

P2P Philosophical Foundation, “The Eco-Philosophy of Henry Skolimowski”, dalam Michel Bauwens, Foundation for Peer to Peer Alternatives Newsletter Issue 67, 2005.

Payne, Dinah M. dan Cecily A. Rainborn, “Sustainable Development: The Ethics Support the Economics”, dalam Thomas A. Easton, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Environmental Issues, McGraw Hill, 2008.

Robinson, “Comparative Environmental Law: Evaluating How Legal Systems Address Sustainable Development”, dalam Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1997.
Sachs, Wolfang, “Towards Global Ecocracy?”, The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, 1992.

Salim, Emil, “Jika Iklim Berubah”, dalam Daniel Murdiyarso, Sepuluh Tahun Perjalanan Negosiasi Konvensi Perubahan Iklim, Penerbit Buku Kompas, Jakarta, 2003.

Soemartono, R.M. Gatot P., Hukum Lingkungan Indonesia, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 1996.

Supriadi, Hukum Lingkungan di Indonesia: Sebuah Pengantar, Sinar Grafika, Jakarta, 2008.

Weller, Gunther dan Patricia Anderson, eds., Implications of Global Climate Change in Alaska and the Bering Sea Regions, Center for Global Change and Arctic System Research, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1998.

Williamson, O.E., The Mechanism of Governance, Oxford University Press, New York dan Oxford, 1996.

World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987.

INTERNET

Europe, A Constitution for Europe, tersedia pada http://europa.eu/scadplus/constitution/index_en.htm, diakses terakhir kali tanggal 23 April 2009.

UNFCCC, List of Annex I Parties to the Convention, tersedia pada http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.php, diakses ter-akhir kali pada tanggal 22 April 2009.

The French National Assembly, Constitution of French, tersedia pada http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/english/8ab.asp#PREAMBLE, diakses terakhir kali tanggal 23 April 2009.

University of Richmond, Constitution of Equador, tersedia pada http://cofinder.richmond.edu/ country.php, diakses terakhir kali tanggal 23 April 2009.

PUTUSAN PENGADILAN

Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Nomor 002/PUU-I/2003, diputus tanggal 15 Desember 2004.

Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Perkara Nomor 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 dan Putusan Perkara Nomor 008/PUU-III/2005, diputus tanggal 19 Juli 2005.

Mahkamah Konstitusi, Putusan Nomor 013/PUU-III/2005, diputus tanggal 12 September 2005.

Mahkamah Konstitusi, Perkara Nomor 021/PUU-III/2005, diputus tanggal 21 April 2009.

Ganga Pollution Tanneries Case.

M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath.

Rural Litigation Entitlement Kendra Dehradun Vs. State of U.P.