I WILL never be able to forget those days during the two years of the Constitutional Assembly.

At the time the spirit of the 1945 independence struggle could still be felt. Statesmanship was held in high esteem. Voting was not something taboo, for the sake of safeguarding a principle. It was very different from the current era, where the Constitution has become a tool of compromise.

Almost every day, at the podium located in the old building, arguments took place. Political figures took turns to stand up and convey their views. The words spoken were refined, full of political courtesy. But the content was so deep.

Although they attacked each other with legal arguments, their speeches were rich with metaphors. Just read the treatise to the Constitutional Assembly. Take, for example, the November 13, 1957 speech by the General Chairperson of the urban-based Islamic Masyumi Party, Mohammad Natsir, who was also the former Prime Minister, who said: “From an exposed leaf, appears the fruit,” alluding to the real aims of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) who were enthusiastically supporting the state ideology, Pancasila.

Likewise, pay close attention to what Buya Hamka said during a hearing in April 1959, who strongly criticized Indonesia’s founding President Sukarno because he was enthusiastically campaigning for a return to the 1945 Constitution, when he said: “Establishing a Constitution is not like rubbing Aladdin’s magic lamp.” Likewise when Soedijono Djojoprajitno, a figure from the socialist-oriented Murba Party, asked questions about the substance of the arguments. The depth of his logic was truly apparent.

Aside from Natsir and Hamka, there was Wilopo, the Speaker of the Constitutional Assembly and leading member of the Indonesian National Party (PNI), strong figures from Masyumi Party like Isa Anshari, and the General Chairperson of the PKI, D.N. Aidit. Even Professor Utrecht from Holland was a member of the Constitutional Assembly.

At the time I was still only 29. In the December 1955 general elections I was elected as a member of the Constitutional Assembly representing the PNI for the electoral region of East Java. My ranking was 339 out of 520 seats in the Constitutional Assembly. Immediately above me was Pak Soebagio Reksodipoera, a PNI intellectual who was also one of the founders of Jong Indonesia in Bandung.

I was the youngest member of the Constitutional Assembly at the time. In general, my colleagues were already established in terms of politics and knowledge. Many of them had a masters degree in law from the Leiden University Law School in Holland. Compared with them, I was like a child taking part in a game for older children.

Fortunately, many of my old acquaintances also became members of the Constitutional Assembly. Included among these was my history teacher from Taman Siswa (an educational association in the first quarter of the 20th century), Soedijono Djojoprajitno from the Murba Party. Also my political mentor in Pasuruan (East Java) who fostered my liking for constitutional law, Pak Praktito Sastro Hadikusumo from the PNI. And my former landlady who almost became my mother-in-law, Nyonya S.D. Soesanto, who represented the PKI.

AFTER being inaugurated as members of the assembly on November 10, 1956, President Sukarno in a speech repeatedly warned the Constitutional Assembly not to take too long and be trivial about drafting a new Constitution. He also reminded us that if necessary we could simply return to the 1945 Constitution. It was this posture by Sukarno that triggered the debate between the politicians.

For the sake of efficiency, the Constitutional Assembly Body at the time formed a small team that was referred to as the Constitutional Assembly Preparatory Committee. The team expedited the task of drafting the Constitution. Its membership was not large and reflected a representation of members of the Constitutional Assembly.

The committee was divided into four commissions that discussed national principles, human rights, forms of administration, state institutions and the national anthem. If a subject had already been agreed to on the committee, only then would all of the members be invited to Bandung to attend a Constitutional Assembly plenary meeting. Bandung itself was chosen because the weather was cool, also because the building being used was considered historic and appropriate therefore to give birth to a constitution.

Out of all the materials, the sharpest debate was over national principles. There were at least two polarizations of opinion, the Pancasila Block comprising the PNI, PKI, the Indonesian Socialist Party (PSI) Murba, the Indonesia Party (Partindo) and the Catholic Party. The other was the Islamic pole with Masyumi, the Islamic mass organization Nahdlatul Ulama, the United Islam Indonesia Party and the other Islam-based parties. They were demanding the inclusion of the Jakarta Charter—obliging Muslims to follow Islamic Law—in the 1945 Constitution.

Initially, the Murba Party was not part of the Pancasila Block. They proposed that a Social Economic model become the national principle. The Murba coalition was comprised of four votes, workers had five votes and the communist youth generation one vote. Initially the PSI was also part of the coalition. But later they switched and joined the Pancasila coalition.

Uniquely, the PKI did not join the Social Economic coalition, which in ideological terms was closer to the PKI’s views. This cannot be separated from the influence of Aidit who succeeded in replacing older party figures such as Alimin and Tang Ling Djie in 1952. According to Aidit’s thinking, only the PNI could cooperate with his party without having to make an excessive ideological compromise.

Although the Social Economic coalition only had a small number of votes, they were militant. They did not wish to be crushed in the middle while the two biggest currents of thought between Pancasila and Islam were fighting it out. Moreover their thinking was actually included in both the ideology of Pancasila as well as Islam.

The ideological battle was very heated. Although, what was interesting, was that the political figures conveyed their views politely and with a high level of politics. Each of them did so on the podium. There were no outbursts during the sessions at the Senayan building like there is today.

Before, when political opponents spoke, we were quiet and listened carefully to what was being said. Certainly there were interruptions, but all of it was regulated. There was no finger-pointing or sabotage. Only occasionally the gavel was banged, when the tension became too high.

Likewise also during session breaks, all of the participants chatted amicably, like there was nothing wrong. Whereas during the sessions, they were prepared to fight as if to the death, for the sake of defending their respective principles.

There was a Constitutional Assembly Cafe located in the building, where the political figures would discuss things intimately. I often found Masyumi figure Isa Anshari, who liked to “roar” loudly on the podium and was known as being anti-communist, drinking coffee with Aidit. Quite a few colleagues also said that they went out to eat sate together at the Braga.

The political courtesy shown in that era is so very different from this era. Then, we felt that political work was something honorable. So it had to be done in an honorable manner also.

AFTER two years of hearings, it was still difficult to bring the two poles in the Constitutional Assembly together. President Sukarno, meanwhile, was increasingly vehement about his wish to return to the 1945 Constitution. The heated atmosphere also spread to the Constitutional Assembly building. The debate became so difficult, that eventually three ballots were conducted on May 29, June 1 and June 2, 1959.

On the first day of voting, the option of returning to the 1945 Constitution without amendments received 269 votes. While an amendment to the preamble by adding seven words from the Jakarta Chapter obtained 199 votes from the 474 that were present. Voting on the second day resulted in 263 accepting the 1945 Constitution as it stood and 203 accepting it with amendments.

Voting on the third day resulted in 264 to 204. Meaning the majority of members agreed with the government’s desire to put the 1945 Constitution into effect without any amendments. Unfortunately, the decision was considered to have failed to reach a quorum of two-thirds as stipulated by Article 37 of the 1950 Provisional Constitution.

In accordance with regulations, the Constitutional Assembly could hold two more votes. But many members refused to attend the following sessions. Constitutional Assembly Speaker Wilopo offered a compromise, to delay a decision until after the recess period.

All of the members agreed. But this was to be our last session as members of the Constitutional Assembly. A short time later, Army Chief of Staff, General A.H. Nasution, issued a ban on political activity. On July 5, 1959, President Sukarno issued a decree returning to the 1945 Constitution and dissolving the Constitutional Assembly.

There were no more official meetings. We weren’t even able to wish each other goodbye. A short time later the members’ honorarium was stopped. Perhaps the government was angry because it believed that the Constitutional Assembly had failed to produce anything.

Actually, just before it was dissolved, the Constitutional Assembly had already agreed to a number of constitutional amendments, outside of the matter of national principles and the system of government. A number of things had already been completed, such as the form of the state, the system of government, the system of representation and even on human rights.

Coincidentally it was I who chaired the Sub-Commission on Human Rights. We succeeded in reaching an agreement to include an article on human rights in the 1950 Constitution as the principle reference alongside the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The 1950 Constitution was considered to be more comprehensive then the 1945 Constitution.

Frankly, there were almost no problems on the sub-committee. Almost all of the factions had a high level of appreciation towards human rights issues, including the right to asylum that I proposed, the right to life, to have different opinions and political convictions. Moreover if a political power succeeded in controlling the government, they would not be allowed to curtail other people’s right to oppose them.

There were still opportunities for debate. The Islamic faction had as its point of reference the Qur’an and the Hadith (the written traditions of the Prophet Muhammad). There were other factions that based themselves on liberal and socialist ideas, as well as Indonesia’s experience during the national independence struggle against the Dutch. All of them however reached an agreement to use rational language of a general character. Uniquely, the agreement also included the issue of freedom of religion.

The most impressive thing was when we discussed the state’s coat of arms, the Garuda Pancasila. None of the matters before the commission, including the flag and the coat of arms, encountered any problems. Except for the Murba Party which requested a minor change to the Garuda Pancasila. They wanted the Garuda bird’s head to face left.