District Government Association of Indonesia (APKASI) declared Law 27/2009 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council and the Regional Representatives Council (Act MD3) and Law 12/2011 on the Establishment of Regulatory legislation (Act P3) has reduced the authority of the House of Regional Representatives (DPD). The two laws do not involve the Council in the filing and approval of the draft law. Moreover, current law requires the legislative process the role of DPD, including Bill on Local Government, the bill on local elections, and the bill on the Village.

"All-Indonesia Association of District Government continues to fight for the realization of the widest possible autonomy in full and responsible, very concerned to channel the aspirations of the region through the DPD in the legislative process."

The statement was delivered by the Chairman APKASI, Isran Noor was asked to be a witness at the hearing Petitioner judicial MD3 Act and the Act on the Constitutional Court P3 (MK), Wednesday (12/19/2012) afternoon. Plenary sessions of the case 92/PUU-X/2012 and 104/PUU-X/2012 are implemented by the eight judges, namely Moh. Mahfud MD (chairman of the plenary), Achmad Sodiki, Harjono, Hamdan Zoelva, Mohammed Alim, Maria Farida Indrati, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi and Anwar Usman. The trial heard witnesses / experts.

Isran reasoned DPD members elected by the vote of the people with the generally well above average voting members of the House of Representatives. so, DPD has the support and strong political legitimacy in each area or province they represent. As a form of political responsibility to constituents, according to Isran, DPD is obliged to fight for the aspirations of the region. "The law and the mechanisms and procedures relating to the authority of the DPD legislation like this, clearly an obstacle to the realization of the responsibility for the above constituents," said Isran who testified for Petitioner Case Number 104/PUU-X/2012.

Meanwhile, the DPD as Petitioner for Case Number 92/PUU-X/2012 presented three experts, namely Professor. Dr. Saldi Isra, Dr. Maruarar Siahaan, SH, Prof. Maswadi Rauf. Saldi Isra states, Construction Section 22D of the 1945 law is constitutional facts are indisputable. Similarly, the presence of one of the rooms Council as the representative body of the people in Indonesia became indisputable fact anyway. The problem is how to give the right interpretation of the authority of the Council, so its presence does not become an institution in a position between being and not. At least the presence of DPD can be felt, especially in the legislative function as set forth in Article 22D paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), namely a significant role in the bill relating to regional autonomy.

According to Saldi, Article 22D of the 1945 design may not also give wider powers to the Council to draft another category. Probably the expansion for all categories of bill can only be done by making changes to the 1945 fifth. "With the restrictions in Article 22D guided the design, the front should be pursued legislation to give the right interpretation to the legislative authority of the DPD," Saldi said.

Proper interpretation by Saldi, the DPD is not only limited authority propose and participate discussing the bill, as the role performed by the Parliament and the President. The Court may give a more progressive interpretation. If the meaning of consent is rated as a consequence of the discussion together, not wrong if DPD is also involved in the formation of the Act to the approval stage together.

"Giving new meaning to the Council of the more progressive in the legislative process, a potential answer to our concern that legislation increasingly deteriorate. Not only the quality, the quantity of the resulting legislation the House and the government has declined, as in the year 2010 is only able to produce 13 laws, 2011 as many as 24 of the law, the quantity of it is far less when compared with the 2008 and 2009," he said.

For information, request judicial review of Law and Law MD3 P3 Case Number 92/PUU-X/2012 proposed Regional Representative Council (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), Sulastio (KIPP), Pipit Apriani (KIPP), Yusfitriadi (JPPR), Abdullah (ICW), Feri Amsari, SH, MH (HTN Lecturer Faculty of Law, University of Andalas), and King Faisal Sulaiman SH, LLM (LBH Director of Imparsial).

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 reviewed in 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 paragraphs (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 Act on P3 does not involve the DPD in the whole process of discussion of the bill. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh)