On Tuesday (9/23), Constitutional Court (MK) held another trial of judicial review on UU MD3 which filed by five Applicants. In the prolonged trial, government and DPR paid little attention for DPD’s petition.

Represented by acting Dir.Gen of regulation of law, Mualimin Abdi, government said that Article 245 verse (1) UU MD3, to which accused for discriminative content, perpetuates prejudice principle and maintain legal prestige. The rule wasn’t issued to handicap investigation process. Instead, it sets some legal requirements before any investigation can be executed. According to him, Article 245 gives clear resolution that if in 30 days no approval is issued, investigation may proceed without Honorary Assembly’s acceding. “This guarantees law certainty for the law enforcer in executing their tasks,” he added.  

Meanwhile, National Democratic Party (Nasdem) who applied to be related party, accentuated Plaintiff’s argument. Nasdem, represented by Taufik Basari nodded that UU MD3 is cripple and packed with flaws, as its validity came into an effect after the election was completed, while UU MD3 actually induced during 2009-2014 DPR deliberation.   

Apart from it, Nasdem said that DPR should shun conflict of interest by maintaining judex idoneus in propria principle. Thus, Nasdem asked the Court to trace back whether such principle has been hooked along within the deliberation. They also asked the Court to make sure that UU MD3 deliberation was held through impartial principle. “Therefore, related party stated that UU MD3 formation has trespassed norms of the Constitution formally,” Taufik Basari said  

Deliberation Document

Document tracing of UU MD3 actually has been pleaded by the Plaintiff. But up until now, neither DPR nor Government have reported the document as been asked. “Your Majesty, in the previous trial DPD asked government and DPR to attach such documents because what we are receiving are far from even convincing.” Plaintiff’s attorney, Aan Eko Widiarto said.

In response to the Plaintiff, Hamdan Zoelva who led the trial said that the Court will conduct Justices Meeting (RPH) before any decision can be dropped regarding of the case continuity. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/kun)