---

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing on Case No. 12/1980 on the Financial Rights / Administrative Chairman, and Members of the Institute High / High Country, as well as former Heads of Institutions Highest / High and Former Members of Highest Institution, Thursday (2/5). The lawsuit filed by Members of Parliament in Sidoarjo, East Java 2009-2014 period, I Wayan Dendra which was accompanied by Legal Counsel Muhammad Salah.

I Wayan Dendra through his attorney says laws governing pension rights for members of the House of Representatives was able to "lull" Legislator of Parliament so as to make them no longer critical to the executive.

"There should members of Parliament as a political institution or agency that he works only five years and the length of the selection process needs to be done again but instead getting pension funds. If decades of civil servants work, he gets a pension it is something that is very reasonable," said Soleh explained his client’s petition argued.

According to the applicant, as said by Soleh, the Act is inconsistent with Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution states that the state budget must be intended for the welfare of the people. "But we see Articles 12 to 21 of this Act (Law no. 12 1980, red) budget was actually used to squander the pension fund for members of Parliament. This law also does not accommodate DPD as in Article 2 of the 1945 Constitution; MPR is a member of the House of Representatives. DPD is a product of reform that has not been regulated in Act 12/1980," said Soleh explained Act 12 In 1980, that he was no longer relevant today.

Associated with his client’s status, Soleh explained that the actual rights of members of the House of Representatives, the House of Level I, Level II and Parliament alike politically according to Act 27 of 2009. This Act does not give privileges to the members of the House of Representatives than other legislators. "Starting instance requirements, the selection process, the inauguration, duty, and authority was the same. To be honest, even the Petitioner clearly outweighs member regency / city compared to members of the House of Representatives. Why? Because legislators Level II, day to day, dealing with constituents," explained Soleh.

Looking at legislators’ task heavier and the same political rights, the applicant should consider legislators also receive pension entitlements like members of the House of Representatives. However, it soon clarified by Soleh, Petitioner does not mean want to get pension but want to restore the position of members of the House to the first task, namely aspirations. After delivering his argument, Soleh asked the Court to declare that Article 12 up to 21 of Act 12/1980, contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

Responding to the petition, Chairman of the Panel, Muhammad Alim states generally the petition has been good. However, Alim asked Petitioner filed chapter explains the relationship to be tested by the touchstone chapter in 1945, primarily related to pension provision.

Alim also reminded Applicant to argue against the fact that there are different categories such as occurs in members of the House to the Parliament. "So how do you elaborate on it that it was different to be treated differently as well and the same should be treated equally," Alim advice.

Meanwhile, Judge Panel, Arief Hidayat asked the Petitioner to firmly the position of the applicant.

"Please formatted petition which said that the applicant is a citizen. It should be explained. Then the second in the application materials, has not been deciphered more concrete constitutional rights associated with it? I see the fact that members of the Assembly were called as state officials. Meanwhile, if Parliament is actually better fight as local officials, so that their rights are not exactly the same as the official state institutions," said Arief.

Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi asked applicant to add a constitutional argument. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh)

---