Judicial Review over Act 17/2014 (UU MD3) being mulled in a trial which held on Wednesay (9/10) at MK Plenary room. The petition was filed by 2014 winning-party PDI-P.

In the second trial, the Plaintiffs have revised their lawsuit as being advised by the Justice in the previous trial.  Andi Asrun, representing the Plaintiffs, disclosed several changes to accentuate their legal standing any constitutional infringement. “We are scaling in specific perspective delivered through theories from expert including from Maria Farida, as one of the regulation experts. We also peel our petition to reveal formal problems and a quo material review,” he said.   

The Plaintiff explained the revision was drawn due to the conclusion of Women’s Coalition, which agreed that commission chairs composition must be handed by the established mechanism, not by voting. “This due to the fairness principle we’ve maintained, to keep away greedy impression. We want to keep the system straight,” Asrun said.

The Plaintiff also asked MK to drop a verdict concerning recent situation on DPR. “We ask for verdict because there’s a little feud in DPR. Such deliberation of this forum concerning the regulation must be postponed,” he said.

Still Needed

Veri Junaidi, another Attorney, said that women’s representative threshold is still needed. “The 30 percent representative threshold is not yet fulfilled, even when the ruling still takes place,” he explained.

This happened due to the several posts in DPR will be seated on voting-based. Several posts are, Commission Chair, Legislative body, Budgeting board, Parliament Partnership board (BKSAP), Honorary Council Assembly, and Secretary Board (BURT).   The deliberation of the article opposes DPR requirement, failing in philosophy, sociology, and political aspects.  Therefore they called for intermediate verdict to postpone the deliberation.

In the petition, Plaintiffs said that Women participation in the Parliament has to be inferred in a regulation. UU MD3 razes the condition and it is considered opposing 1945 Constitution. Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights also harmed by the ruling, since the regulation closing women representative threshold.(Lulu Anjarsari/mh/kun)