Chairman of the House of Regional Representatives: Act on MD3 and Act on P3 castrated Legislation Rights of House of Regional Representatives

The trial continued on reviewing Act 27/2009 on the People's Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council and the Regional Representatives Council (Act MD3), and the Law. 12/2011 on the Establishment Regulation Legislation (Act P3) filed by the Regional Representatives Council held back the Constitutional Court (MK). The trial heard a statement from DPD, the Government and Parliament chaired by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD. He was assisted by other constitutional judges.

In a statement, Chairman of DPD Irman Gusman as Petitioner revealed that Law and Law MD3 P3 have been emasculated the authority of the DPD in accordance provided for in the 1945 Constitution. According to Irma, limited authority possessed by the DPD has remained limited. "Implementation authority still actually castrated and deprived. Castration authority DPD has been started since the enactment of Law no. 22/2003 on the old Law and Law MD3 10/2004 (Law on the old P3), two products even before the legislature which enacted the DPD period of 2004 inducted. Second Act is not a result of regional aspirations of many things that escape constitutional conditions. Unconstitutionality in the legislative process did not work. The process of formation of the Law Council does not even touch at all, "he said at the Plenary Court Courtroom on Tuesday (23/10).

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives, represented by Nudirman Munir revealed the presence of DPD to strengthen ties in the area of Homeland container and cement national unity and increasing aspirations additional regional interests in national policy relating to state and local governments. In addition, the Council also has a role to accelerate development and democracy in the region. "Thus, the presence of areas referred to in Article 18 UUD 1945 went according to regional diversity in the context of the progress of the nation and the state," he explained.

In addition, some functions DPD Nudirman explained that he is not limited to the enactment of the Act. DPD has limited functionality in the fields of both the budget and the role of legislation. The role of DPD, continued Nudirman, has a role in balancing the state system of Indonesia. "DPD join discusses draft law related to regional autonomy, relations between central and local government, the establishment and expansion of local and regional financial balance and give consideration to the Parliament on the State Budget Law, supervise the implementation of laws relating to regional autonomy," he said.

Regarding the Council's involvement in the formation of law, argued Nudirman core lawmaking actual political debates laws and norms. DIM were questioned Petitioner further Nudirman, only technical issues in the establishment of the Act should be given to the formulation of law experts legislator because DPR and DPD does not have to be experts or legislation to pass in legal drafter. "Submission of the form of DIM is a form of execution is not the issue of constitutionality of the norm. DPR found a quo in accordance with the provisions of Article 20, Article 22 paragraph (2), Article 22D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution," he said.

In the trial, Deputy Chairman of the Assembly Lukman Hakim Saifuddin presented Court summons. Lukman said the presence of DPD in his statement should be placed in order to accommodate the demands for reform. In the context of democracy, the establishment of the DPD is to strengthen Parliament as an institution of the political aspirations of the people, while the DPD as the diversity of the institutions of regional aspirations. "The authority of DPD in limitative appropriate legislation was mandated in Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution. As institutions change and set the 1945 Constitution, the Assembly is not in the capacity of an opinion article in the testing of the 1945 Constitution," he explained.

DPD in cases registered with the Registrar of the Court examined the 92/PUU-X/2012 number of existing provisions in the Act MD3 and P3 to the Constitutional Court Act. Among them, Article 71 letters a, d, e, f, and g, Article 102 paragraph (1) letter d and e, Article 107 paragraph (1) letter c, Article 143 paragraph (5), Article 144 , Article 146 paragraph (1), Article 147 paragraph (1), subsection (3), subsection (4), and paragraph (7), Article 150 paragraph (3), subsection (4) letter a, and paragraph (5) , Article 151 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), Article 154 paragraph (5) Law MD3 No. 27/2009 to the 1945 Constitution. Then, the Council also examined the Article 18 letter g, Article 20 paragraph (1), Article 21 paragraph (1), Article 22 paragraph (1), Article 23 paragraph (2), Article 43 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 46 paragraph (1), Article 48 paragraph (2) and (4), Article 65 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4), Article 68 paragraph (2) letter c and d, Article 68 paragraph (3), subsection (4) a letter, and paragraph (5), Article 69 paragraph (1) letters a and b, and paragraph (3), Article 70 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law on P3 No. 12/2011 to the 1945 Constitution. Council argued that the articles had been castrated DPD legislation rights. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/

Tuesday, October 23, 2012 | 17:59 WIB 120