p–ISSN: 2723 - 6609 e-ISSN: 2745-5254

Vol. 5, No. 8 August 2024 http://jist.publikasiindonesia.id/

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 3125

The Existence of Pancasila in the Draft Law on the Direction

of Pancasila Ideology (Sociolegal Study on Public Response to

Law Enforcement)

Roys Qaribila

Universitas al-azhar indonesia, Indonesia

Email: [email protected]

*Correspondence

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Pancasila

ideology policy draft law,

Pancasila, ideology.

Pancasila as the basis of the Indonesian state has an

important role in national and state life. However, along the

way, Pancasila experienced various challenges and

dynamics, including the emergence of the Pancasila

Ideology Policy Bill (RUU HIP) which sparked pros and

cons in society. This research aims to analyze the existence

of Pancasila values in the Draft Law on Pancasila Ideology

and formulate the public's response to the enactment of the

resulting law. The method in the research uses a qualitative

approach by collecting data through literature studies. After

the data is collected, it then involves analysis techniques

through three steps, namely simplifying information,

presenting data findings, and drawing conclusions. The

findings of the research show that supporters of this bill

argue that aligning the law with Pancasila values will

strengthen the state's ideological foundation and ensure that

the nation's noble values become the basis for all activities.

However, on the other hand, critics highlight several

controversial aspects of this bill that the interpretation of the

trisila in the HIP Bill is not in line with the version of

Pancasila that is widely accepted by Indonesian society. In

addition, the absence of an MPRS regulation regulating the

dissolution of the PKI in the bill raises concerns that the

removal of this reference could give the impression that the

government does not recognize the history of the dissolution

of the PKI, which is considered an important moment in

Indonesian history. Apart from that, there are concerns that

this bill could be misused for certain political interests which

could damage social harmony and stability in Indonesia.

Introduction

Soekarno called Pancasila a philosophe grondslag or a philosophical foundation for

the Indonesian nation. Thus, Pancasila has two important functions, namely Pancasila is

expected to be a guideline and guide for the daily life of the people of Indonesia, both in

Roys Qaribila

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 3126

the scope of the family, society, and the nation. In addition, Pancasila is expected to be

the basis of the state so it is an obligation that all aspects of state life, including the legal,

political, economic, and social fields of society, must be rooted in and aimed at Pancasila

(Hakim, 2020).

However, in its journey, Pancasila experienced various challenges and dynamics,

including the emergence of the Pancasila Ideology Direction Bill (RUU HIP) which

triggered pros and cons in society. The Pancasila Ideological Direction Bill abbreviated

as the HIP Bill is a draft law that regulates the direction of Pancasila ideology. According

to the Head of the Law Drafting Center of the Inosentius Council Expert Body, Samsul,

the bill is a proposal from the Legislation Body of the House of Representatives (Baleg).

"Academic manuscripts and drafts were also made by the Baleg," he said. "The Baleg has

quite a lot of experts, so most of the bills are worked on by the Baleg, including the HIP

Bill."

The HIP Bill creates debate because it includes the concept of trisila, which includes

socio-nationalism, socio-democracy, and cultured divinity, as well as ekasila which

emphasizes cooperation. In addition, the HIP Bill is also controversial because it does not

include the MPRS tap which includes the dissolution of the PKI in its considerations. The

Decree of the MPRS is fully named the Decree of the Provisional People's Consultative

Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia Number XXV/MPRS/1966 concerning the

Dissolution of the Communist Party of Indonesia, Declaration as a Prohibited

Organization in All Territory of the State, and Prohibition of Any Activity to Spread or

Develop Communist Ideology or Teachings/Marxism-Leninism (Detik.com, 2021). The

pros and cons of the HIP Bill reflect the complexity of sociolegal issues related to the

existence of Pancasila in Indonesia's pluralistic society. Therefore, research is needed to

deeply understand the existence of Pancasila in the HIP Bill, including the community's

response to the enforcement of the law.

Previous research (Guawan, 2021) revealed that the controversy surrounding the

HIP Bill stemmed from differences in ideological views between the people of Indonesia

and the content of the bill. The bill refers to the concept of the Pancasila version of June

1, 1945, which includes Trisila and Ekasila. However, through his analysis, the author

concludes that the HIP Bill is not in line with the status of Pancasila as Indonesia's

Staatsfundamentalnorm because it is contrary to Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the

Formation of Laws and Regulations. Therefore, the author suggests the cancellation of

the HIP Bill because it can disrupt the consistency of the legal system and potentially

trigger ideological disputes in Indonesian society.

Another research (Rifki Zulhakim, 2023) highlights the shortcomings in the

preparation of each article of the Pancasila Ideology Direction Bill. One of the main

factors that caused this shortage was the absence of mention of the MPRS TAP Number

XXV/MPRS 1966, which is believed to be able to re-ignite the existence of the

Communist Party of Indonesia. The conclusion drawn from this study emphasizes that

Pancasila, as the highest philosophical foundation of the country, should be upheld in the

constitution of Indonesia. However, the approval of the Pancasila Ideology Direction Bill

The Existence of Pancasila in the Draft Law on the Direction of Pancasila Ideology (Sociolegal

Study on Public Response to Law Enforcement)

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 3127

has the potential to reduce the dignity and dignity of Pancasila itself. Pancasila, which is

considered the Philohische Groundslag or the philosophical foundation of the Indonesian

nation, has become the main foothold in the life of the nation and state in Indonesia.

Therefore, it is recommended that the House of Representatives does not continue the

discussion of the Bill on the Pancasila Ideology, because this action can change the

position of the state constitution and the foundation of the life of the nation and state for

the people of Indonesia.

This research can be the basis for further research in the same or related fields, as

well as contribute to the development of theories and thoughts on the relationship between

law and ideology in the context of Indonesian society. The purpose of this study is to

analyze the existence of Pancasila values in the Draft Law on the Direction of Pancasila

Ideology and formulate a public response to the enforcement of the resulting law.

Research Methods

The method in this study utilizes a qualitative approach in a sociolegal way. Using

qualitative means that research involves understanding surrounding events in a focused

manner, through the exploration of meanings, views and insights from individuals and

communities. This approach focuses more on understanding the context, interpretation,

and social construction of the reality being studied (Priadana & Sunarsi, 2021). This

research uses a sociolegal approach. Law can be studied through various perspectives,

both from the perspective of law and social sciences or even with a combined approach

of both. Sociolegal studies is an approach to studying law that combines legal science

with social sciences to comprehensively understand the social impact and context of law

(Armia, 2022). The object of research in this study is the Legislation Body of the House

of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia. The data collection technique in this

study is by literature study. In this study, researchers collected data from various literature

sources, such as books, scientific journals, research reports, and documents related to the

research. After the data is collected, data analysis includes shrinking the data, presenting

the data, and then drawing conclusions.

Results and Discussion

For a long time, Pancasila was not only a national identity but also the basis of the

state's ideology containing principles that were believed to be a guideline for the

Indonesian people. This concept is known as a doctrine or idea that is firmly held and

used as a reference for living a daily routine (Susilawati, 2020). Pancasila is considered

an open or flexible ideology because the principles in it can adapt to the progress of the

times without eliminating the essence and truth contained in it. This means that the

position of Pancasila is considered a middle point or middle way that is not binding or

rigid but still has stability and strength as a moral and social foundation for the life of the

country.

Roys Qaribila

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 3128

Pancasila has various meanings that are very important for the Indonesia nation,

reflected in the values contained in it, such as the values of Godhead, Humanity, Unity,

Society, and Justice which are not only guidelines but also the core of life of the people

of Indonesia (Asmaroini, 2017). These values are not only firmly held in the minds and

attitudes of individuals, but are also practised in actions and behaviours both personally

and in the community. Understanding and practising these values forms unity and

harmony in life with the people in Indonesia.

However, in 2020 to be precise, Pancasila as a state ideology was faced with a

polemic that arose in connection with the Pancasila Ideology Direction Bill (RUU HIP)

proposed by members of the House of Representatives, this bill has been included in the

2020 Priority Bill Prolegnas. The HIP Bill is a legislative proposal that includes an

academic manuscript containing 100 pages and a draft bill consisting of 10 chapters and

60 articles, as of April 26, 2020 (Judge, 2020). In the draft, it is stated that currently no

law officially regulates the Pancasila Ideological Direction as a guideline for life. So a

Law on the Direction of Pancasila Ideology is needed which was finally proposed by DRP

through this HIP Bill.

The HIP Bill was normatively proposed because it was considered that there were

no provisions that specifically regulated the direction of the Pancasila ideology for the

life of the nation and state. Pancasila itself is used as the basis of the state of Indonesia,

but there are no regulations that regulate its implementation in detail in various areas of

life (Roringkon, 2022). The outline of the reasoning of the House of Representatives

(DPR) as a legislative institution in Indonesia, is to draft regulations regarding guidelines

for the implementation of Pancasila. The existence of the HIP Bill is expected to set

parameters and monitor for legal provisions to be in line with the values of Pancasila.

However, after the issuance of the idea of the HIP Bill, there was a division of

opinion from various circles of society. (Septian, 2020), on the one hand, some view this

bill as a law that will provide a legal basis for the Pancasila Ideology Development

Agency (BPIP) to carry out its duties and functions. This view sees the HIP Bill as an

instrument to provide clarity and a framework for BPIP in strengthening the

implementation of Pancasila values in various aspects of life. Meanwhile, on the other

hand, there is a view that states that the HIP Bill has the pretension to change Pancasila

which has been considered final and promulgated since August 18, 1945. This view

highlights concerns that the bill could pave the way for a new interpretation of Pancasila

or even change the essence of values that have been recognized nationally since the

beginning of Indonesia's independence.

Although the HIP Bill has a noble goal to increase the strength of the

implementation of Pancasila to live daily life. However, the bill has received a lot of

criticism, especially related to concerns about the potential weakening of Pancasila

values. Because Pancasila belongs to the entire nation of Indonesia and is not owned by

certain groups, every individual from various levels of society has the right to express

their views and contributions to the HIP Bill (Hariyadi, 2020). Since the dissemination of

the draft bill on April 26, 2020, on social media, there has been a wide response from the

The Existence of Pancasila in the Draft Law on the Direction of Pancasila Ideology (Sociolegal

Study on Public Response to Law Enforcement)

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 3129

public who reject and take this issue seriously. Including, 2 months after that there were

activities involving online studies and discussion of opinions carried out to review the

content of the HIP Bill in its entirety. This activity is an achievement in the controversy

of the bill in Indonesia because the public responded quickly involving a short period

since the draft bill appeared.

Three points are the source of polemics in the HIP Bill. First, related to the basic

reasons for the initial step in submitting the bill. Some parties doubt the need for the HIP

Bill, considering that there are no urgent conditions that force the need for a Pancasila

ideological direction. They argue that to achieve social justice and welfare, there are

already many political and legal instruments available, and what needs to be emphasized

is their implementation (Mudjiyanto & Dunan, 2021). So it is felt that there is no need to

create new rules that have the potential to overlap with existing legislation.

In the draft bill, there is a claim that the Pancasila Ideological Direction will be a

guide for all Indonesian people in achieving justice and welfare, with the spirit of kinship

and cooperation. However, sceptics consider that the clause regarding justice and welfare

has been enshrined in various other regulations, thus raising questions about the need for

the HIP Bill itself.

The second point the problem of this bill is that it does not mention the MPRS TAP

Number XXV of 1966 which deals with the dissolution of the Communist Party of

Indonesia (PKI) and the prohibition on the spread or development of

Communism/Marxism-Leninism ideas or teachings. The loss of reference to the MPRS

TAP creates a paradox in the HIP Bill because although the bill introduces Pancasila as a

guideline for state life, the ban on PKI is not mentioned in its consideration.

This is the estuary for the issue of concerns about the rise of communism that fills

the public space (Satria, 2020). The HIP Bill is considered a soft document that is even

insensitive to the issue of the rise of communism which is considered a prohibited thing

in Indonesia. As a result, it increased the belief that communist power was increasingly

consolidated, although the possibility of a revival of communism was very small.

However, fear of communist ideology still affects the beliefs of some groups of political

Islamist activists, which has been the trigger for recent protests.

The third point of the dynamics of the HIP Bill is an effort to reduce Pancasila by

introducing the concept of Trisila (Jaya, 2022). In Article 7 of the draft bill, the concepts

of Trisila and Ekasila are explained in an article consisting of three paragraphs. First, it is

stated that the main characteristics of Pancasila are justice and social welfare imbued with

the spirit of family. Second, it is explained that the main characteristics of Pancasila

consist of Trisila, namely socio-nationalism, socio-democracy, and cultured divinity.

Then third, Trisila as explained in the second verse is manifested in Ekasila, which is

cooperation. The argument about Trisila and Ekasila in the HIP Bill is considered too

selectiveistic and ignores many important aspects, especially related to cultural divinity.

Critics highlight that this concept is difficult to explain academically because the phrase

"divinity and culture" represents two different entities, namely the transcendent and

profane, making it difficult to mix them up rationally (Mudjiyanto & Dunan, 2021).

Roys Qaribila

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 3130

The opinion of Anwar Abbas, the Secretary General of the Indonesia Ulema

Council (MUI), (Jaya, 2022) revealed in a news source that efforts to squeeze Pancasila

into trisila and ekasila are considered a betrayal of the nation and state. According to him,

Pancasila as a fundamental norm must be understood as a whole and inseparable unit.

Even the order should not be changed. Deviating from it by introducing the concepts of

trisila and ekasila is considered an irresponsible and very dangerous action for the future

of this nation. Anwar emphasized that trisila and ekasila are not Pancasila.

Another opinion according to Ali Masykur Musa, Chairman of the Nahdlatul Ulama

Scholars Association (ISNU), stated that the HIP Bill will eliminate the dimension of

spirituality in the life of the nation and state. According to him, Pancasila cannot be

reduced to trisila or ekasila, as formulated in Article 6 paragraph 1 and Article 7 of the

HIP Bill. This is considered a reduction in the meaning of the precepts of the One

Godhead, which is the essence of religious values and spirituality. Ali Masykur Musa

explained that for this nation, Pancasila is an agreement consisting of five precepts that

reinforce each other, where the precepts of God live the values of humanity, unity,

populism, and social justice.

This means that the existence of trisilane and easily creates a polemic where some

parties consider that the HIP Bill aims to change the basis of the State of Indonesia by

ignoring the divine values contained in the first precept of Pancasila (Alimuddin,

Erdalina, & Hanafi, 2021). The rejection of the HIP Bill has a reasonable basis because,

in the legal field, Pancasila is recognized as a source of material law that regulates that

every law and regulation must not contradict the values of Pancasila. However, in the bill,

Pancasila is placed under the law, so there is a discrepancy in legal reasoning regarding

the hierarchy.

Based on a series of legislative arrangements, Pancasila is recognized as the ideal

aspiration and goal of the law that occupies the most important position (Hakki, Zamzami,

& Muchsin, 2022). Pancasila is the main basis for the formation of legal regulations under

it and vice versa, the legal rules made must be based on the principles in Pancasila as the

origin of the first law, by Article 2 of Law No. 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of

Laws and Regulations.

The legal structure shows that Pancasila is the ideal goal of the legal system that is

used as a guideline for lower regulations. In the preparation of legislation, Pancasila must

be the main reference. This is aimed at the implementation of the regulations under it can

be approved by community members, considering that Pancasila is a core reflection of

the individual and character of the Indonesian people. Therefore, if there is a deviation

from the values of Pancasila or contrary to the regulations that are above it in the

hierarchy, then the legal product can be declared invalid and can be cancelled.

According to (Fadhlillah & Yusuf, 2021), it is concluded that the HIP Bill does not

have legal certainty and benefits because it is not by Pancasila which is the source of all

legal sources in Indonesia. The bill is considered inconsistent with the values of Pancasila,

which is the main basis for the formation of laws in Indonesia. In addition, the bill is also

considered useless because it causes uproar in the community. As a result, this bill is

The Existence of Pancasila in the Draft Law on the Direction of Pancasila Ideology (Sociolegal

Study on Public Response to Law Enforcement)

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 3131

considered to provide no benefits to the community and can even cause instability or

social tension.

Based on these findings, research shows that the HIP Bill has an impact on the

position of Pancasila as the highest source of law in Indonesia. Although the bill has good

intentions to strengthen the practice of Pancasila in the life of the country, however,

various criticisms have been raised, especially related to concerns about the potential

weakening of Pancasila values. The public's response to the HIP Bill has varied, with the

majority criticizing it.

Conclusion

The pros and cons of the HIP Bill reflect the complexity of sociolegal issues related

to the existence of Pancasila in the context of Indonesia's pluralistic society. On the one

hand, supporters of this bill argue that aligning the law with Pancasila values will

strengthen the ideological foundation of the state and ensure that the nation's noble values

become the foundation of all activities. They believe that this bill can strengthen the unity

and unity of the nation and encourage a better understanding of Pancasila among the

public. However, on the other hand, critics highlight some controversial aspects of this

bill. They argue that the interpretation of the trisila in the HIP Bill is not in line with the

version of Pancasila that is widely accepted by the people of Indonesia. In addition, the

absence of the MPRS tap that regulates the dissolution of the PKI in the bill raises

concerns that the removal of the reference may give the impression that the government

does not recognize the history of the dissolution of the PKI, which is considered an

important moment in Indonesia's history. In addition, there are concerns that this bill

could be misused for certain political interests that could damage social harmony and

stability in Indonesia.

Roys Qaribila

Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 8, August 2024 3132

Bibliography

Alimuddin, Alimuddin, Erdalina, Tuty, & Hanafi, Imam. (2021). Ketuhanan Yang

Berkebudayaan Menjadi Shaleh dalam Bingkai Kebudayaan. Nusantara; Journal

for Southeast Asian Islamic Studies, 17(1), 42–49.

Armia, Muhammad Siddiq. (2022). Penentuan Metode Pendekatan Penelitian Hukum.

Lembaga Kajian Konstitusi Indonesia (LKKI).

Asmaroini, Ambiro Puji. (2017). Menjaga eksistensi Pancasila dan penerapannya bagi

masyarakat di era globalisasi. JPK: Jurnal Pancasila Dan Kewarganegaraan, 1(2),

50–64. https://doi.org/10.24269/v2.n1.2017.59-72

Fadhlillah, Muhammad Rizqi, & Yusuf, Yusmedi. (2021). Analisis Yuridis Tentang

Rancangan Undang-Undang Haluan Pancasila. Supremasi Hukum, 17(01), 34–42.

Hakim, Abdul. (2020). (HAKI) Tolak RUU & NA. Kumpulan Berkas Kepangkatan

Dosen.

Hakki, Diyaul, Zamzami, Abid, & Muchsin, Noorhuda. (2022). Kepastian Yuridis

Pancasila Sebagai Staatsfundamentalnorm Dalam Negara Hukum Republik

Indonesia. Dinamika, 28(7), 4158–4177.

Hariyadi, Anton. (2020). Siapa Yang Membutuhkan RUU HIP. ADALAH, 4(3), 17–26.

Jaya, Matra. (2022). Nilai-Nilai Pendidikan Islam dalam Butir-Butir Pancasila.

Humantech: Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin Indonesia, 2(2), 316–329.

Mudjiyanto, Bambang, & Dunan, Amri. (2021). Pengarusutamaan nilai-nilai pancasila di

era pandemi covid-19. Majalah Semi Ilmiah Populer Komunikasi Massa, 2(1).

Priadana, M. Sidik, & Sunarsi, Denok. (2021). Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif. Pascal

Books.

Rifki Zulhakim, Muhammad. (2023). Pengusulan Rancangan Undang-Undang Haluan

Ideologi Pancasila Ditinjau Dari Undang-Undang Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 Tentang

Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Universitas Sultan Ageng

Tirtayasa.

Roringkon, Juhaidy Rizaldy. (2022). Problema Kontruksi Undang-Undang Bermuatan

Pancasila. Tumou Tou Law Review, 116–127.

Satria, Viqri Rahmad. (2020). Pandangan Dewan Pimpinan Wilayah Front Pembela Islam

Kalimantan Barat Terhadap Rancangan Undang–Undang Haluan Ideologi

Pancasila. Al-Ulum: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Humaniora, 6(2).

Septian, Doni. (2020). Pemahaman Nilai-Nilai Pancasila Dalam Memperkuat Kerukunan

Umat. TANJAK: Journal of Education and Teaching, 1(2), 155–168.