DPD Experts: Law Product Defect Formally without DPD Presence

House of Regional Representatives (DPD) has the right to file Bill opinion as a representation of the area. DPD proposed bill that deserves to be the main reference for the President and the House of Representatives in proposing a similar bill.

After the constitutional changes of RI, center of gravity, pulse state that used to be at the center, has now turned to the area. On this basis it is fair to say that when DPD DPD participation discussing a bill that is not based on the generosity of the President and the House of Representatives, but going to discuss the condition of the formal validity of a bill into law.

"In other words, for example, discuss the DPD did not participate, then the product law without the presence of third parties can be stated as a law formally defective, null and void as a whole despite the agreement terms are met by the president with the House."

As stated by Irman Putra Sidin when ordered as an expert presented by the DPD in the trial at the Constitutional Court (MK) Thursday (11/22/2012). Plenary Session held by the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD (chairman of the plenary), accompanied by eight members of the constitutional judges Achmad Sodiki, Harjono, Hamdan Zoelva, M. Akil Mochtar, Muhammad Alim, Maria Farida Indrati, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi and Anwar Usman. Moh. Mahfud MD stated the trial court 104/PUU-X/2012 92/PUU-X/2012 and previously examined separately, this time on the court combined. Mahfud reasoned, the object and the arguments in the two cases are substantially the same. "Due to the same object, the arguments put forward are also substantially the same, the case is put together," said Mahfud argued.

Irman further stated in the constitution, territory or area has live organs that have the independence movement, so that the area or areas should be the main actors are not just extras in national policy-making process. History shows, the area has its own historical role to form the Republic of Indonesia. This is the basis that the Council has an equal footing with the president and the parliament although different authorities.

"From this description, it is natural when DPD is constructed that the word ‘may’ in filing a bill in the Constitution of 1945 was not merely to the semantic meaning, but reinforce your power that can propose a bill is a right opinion DPD as a representation of the region," Irma said.

Irman assesses the application for judicial review is not intended to reduce the authority of Parliament or to diminish the authority of the president. "But, this application actually reads that DPD wants to be the friend of the House of Representatives and wants to be the friend of the president in managing the country, so that this country can be taken care of properly in order to achieving goals as enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of 1945," Irman added.

On the agenda listening trial witness / expert, the DPD as the applicant for the Case Number 92/PUU-X/2012 was originally presented Constitutional Forum (FK) as an expert. However, FK in a letter signed by Ahmad Harun Kamil and Zacky Siradj, expressed in internal dissent FK occurred in this case, so the FK did not send one of its members to be experts on behalf of the forum (FK).

For information, request of judicial review of Law MD3 and Law P3 Case Number 92/PUU-X/2012 submitted by DPD. As for the Case Number 104/PUU-X/2012 proposed by Prof. Shamsuddin Haris (LIPI), Dr. Yudi Latif (Reform Institute Executive Director), Sukardi Rinakit (Soegeng Sarjadi Foundation), Titi Anggraini (Perludem) Toto Sugiarto (Researcher of Soegeng Sarjadi Syndicate), Yurist Oloan (FORMAPPI), as Petitioner VI, Dr. Hemawan Estu Bagijo, SH, MH (Chairman of the Association of Teachers HTN), Refly Harun (CORRECT), Yuda Kusumaningsih (WG Representation of Women), Sulastio (IPC), Pipit Apriani (KIPP), Yusfitriadi (JPPR), Abdullah (ICW), Feri Amsari, SH, MH (HTN Lecturer of Faculty of Law, University of Andalas), and King Faisal Sulaiman SH, LLM (LBH Imparsial Director).

The material tested MD3 law, namely Article 71 letter a, d, e, Article 102 paragraph (1), Article 147 paragraph (3), subsection (4), subsection (7), Article 150 paragraph (3), paragraph ( 4) letter a, Article 151 paragraph (1) letter a, b, and Article 154 paragraph (5).

Material P3 law, namely Article 18 letter g, Article 20 paragraph (1), Article 21 paragraph (1), subsection (3), Article 22 paragraph (1), Article 23 paragraph (2), Article 43 paragraph (1 ), subsection (2), Article 46 paragraph (1), Article 48 paragraph (2), subsection (4), subsection (5), Article 65 paragraph (3), Article 68 paragraph (2) letter c, d, paragraph (3), subsection (4), subsection (5), Article 69 paragraph (1) letter a, letter b, Article 70 paragraph (1), and paragraph (2).

DPD argued, Article 102 paragraph (1) (d) and (e) of the Act MD3, Article 48 paragraph (2) and (4) the Act has reduced the authority of legislation P3 DPD should be equivalent to the legislative authority of the Member, Commission, and the Joint Commission DPR. Article 18 letter g, Article 20 paragraph (1), Article 21, Article 22 paragraph (1), and Article 23 paragraph (2) of P3 was able to negate the authority of the Council to submit the bill both inside and outside the National Legislation Program. Article 143 paragraph (5) and Article 144 of Law MD3 systematically excludes DPD beginning the process of filing the bill. Article 147 paragraph (1), subsection (3), and (4) of Law MD3 has distorted bill DPD proposal to bill the House proposal. Article 43 paragraph (1) and (2) and Article 46 paragraph (1) of Council position P3 humbled to be a sub-ordinate institution in the Lower House. Article 65 paragraph (3) and (4) of the P3 Act does not involve DPD in the whole process of discussion of the bill. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)

Thursday, November 22, 2012 | 17:04 WIB 115