---

Constitutional Court (MK) held preliminary trial of Act 17/2014 about People’s Consultative Assembly, People’s Representative Council, Regional Representative Council, and Legislative Council for Province (UU MD3) on Thursday (8/28) at MK Plenary room. The Judicial Review is pleaded by Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) represented by Megawati Soekarnoputri and Tjahjo Kumolo, alongside with other for persons, Dwi Ria Lafita, Junimart Girsang, Rahmani Yahya, and Sigit Widiarto.

In their petition, the Applicant argued the rule of Article 84, 97, 104, 109, 114, 121, and 152 UU MD3 has harmed the winning PDIP’s Constitutional Rights. It was bear after the regulation determines that Parliament positions will only be filled after DPR members voting and will no longer be the party’s authority.   

The Plaintiff also delivered that the UU MD3 formation process violated the openness procedure, as determined in Article 5 Act 12/2011. According to the Plaintiff, the formula in the Articles is split from the “Academic Textbook”. The Plaintiff also stated that throughout the process none of the input mechanism existed, encompassed to procedural flaw which harm the former applied regulation.

To that reason, the Plaintiff asked MK to halt the ruling of Article 84, Article 97, Article 104, Article 109, Article 115, Article 121, and Article 152 UU MD3, due to the unconstitutional allegations. Plaintiff also unveiled that, based on chronological order, many Articles were slipped into which during the formation. “And when we were (PDIP) protesting to which, they said to issue it in the higher circuit, which means voting will be the determining the result, and for us it was a wrongdoing,” he explained  

Plaintiff also explained that the deliberation of Articles formation opposes DPR discipline and based on referrals, the execution is against philosophic, sociology, and politics aspects.

Women Quota

In the trial, Panel of Justices also deliberated case numbered 82/PUU-XII/2014 filed by five Citizens, namely Khofifah Indar Parawansa, Rieke Diah Pitaloka, Aida Vitalaya, Yuda Kusumaningsih, and Lia Wulandari, alongside with three private legal institutions, namely, Women Empowerment Movement Foundation, Association of Elections and Democracy, and Gender Partner Association   

Those sides challenged Article 97 verse (2), Article 104 verse (2), Article 109 verse (2), Article 115 verse (2), Article 121 verse (2), Article 152 verse (2), and Article 158 verse (2). These Articles have allegedly harmed women’s representatives as Previous UU MD3 determined.

In the petition, Plaintiff represented by Veri Junaidi, admitted that Constitution is not explicitly regulate Women’s representatives. However, the 30% rule has been a part of MK’s verdicts. Verdicts number 22-24/PUU-VI/2008 and number 20/PUU-XI/2013 retain that 30 % rule is a form of positive gender discrimination in legislative institution.

 

Therefore, the Plaintiffs interpreted that 30% rule is mandatory in giving bigger chance to the Women in legislative. The Plaintiffs see that the regulations are guaranteeing the participation of women. The removal was seen of the clausal harm 1945 Constitution as well, dominance will emerge in the House and women’s representatives existence will be interrupted with no assurance. They also retained that the previous regulation assured balance amount in the House to sound Women’s aspiration.    

Justice’s Discretion

In response to the arguments, Panel of Justices led by Arief Hidayat gave several revisions, one of them is to accentuate the legal standing, while Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, explained about the uncertainty of Constitutional disadvantage, “it isn’t really clear, you can’t just be this cynical because of a matter of be-or not to be, the constitutional perspective is still barely seen,” he asked.

Meanwhile, Arief revealed the explanation of the loss is a bit errant to the Constitutional point. Arief asked to accentuate the arguments.(Lulu Anjarsari/mh)

---