---

Constitutional Court declined formal and material judicial review on Act 17/2014 (UU MD3) as petitioned by Indonesian Democratic Party of struggle (PDIP) in accordance to the mechanism of House chairs.

“Declining Plaintiff’s petition entirely,” Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva said, Monday (9/29). The verdict retains the existence of Article 97, Article 104, Article 109, Article 115, Article 121, and Article 152 UU MD3. The Articles mainly stated that DPR chairs, commission chief, legislature board chief, and house administration chief were chosen through consensus agreement, with voting as last resort.

In the petition, the Plaintiff called for judicial review as Article 84, Article 97, Article, 104, Article 109, Article 115, Article 121, and Article 152 Act 17/2004 were seen trespassing Law formation as regulated in Act 12/2011 and harmed transparency principle. According to the Plaintiff, Article 84 UU MD3 is not mentioned in “UU MD3 Academic Transcript” as well as it is not shown “UU MD3 draft Government’s Testimony”. The mentioned articles emerged during the dawn of the deliberation.

Another reason of the petition is that those Articles lack of justice and equality principle. Furthermore, the ruling does less favor for PDIP, as the winning party cannot sit comfortably in the DPR chairs as experienced by then winning parties. Albeit, the ruling of automatic chairs for the winning party was determined in Article 82 Act 27/2009.    

MK stated that MK’s competence is to conduct Act-to-Constitution review, not Act-to-act. MK states that the formation of UU MD3 was aligned with 1945 Constitution. Academic Transcript is powerless to be registered of any annulment attempt.

The Court considered that transparency objection cannot be proven as the deliberation itself was conducted in transparent consensus. “According to those consideration, Plaintiff’s a quo arguments are not sensible,” Wahiduddin Adams said.

Not Constitutional Issues

In accordance to material Review, MK states that 1945 Constitution does not determine DPR organizational hierarchy nor the DPR chair composition mechanism. The Constitution states that DPR’s hierarchy is determined by Act. “According to the Court, how organization works is determined by its own consensus,” he added.

Therefore, mechanism of DPR chairs composition as determined in UU MD3 does not oppose legal certainty principle.

Dissenting Opinion

Two Constitutional Justices, Arief Hidayat and Maria Farida Indrati, have different opinions related to the verdict. According to Arief, the change of the mechanism of DPR chairs deserves to be reviewed. Political mechanism may trespass the constitution if the deliberation of the ruling Act was packed by illegal actions that opposes the Constitution.    

For Arief, constantly changing DPR chairs mechanism may arouse legal uncertainty. “Voters expect that DPR chair is seated by winning party representative, by winning the election that means the Party is trusted by the people,” Arief statement recited by Hamdan Zoelva.    

Arief also stated that UU MD3, especially in relation to DPD’s authority, paid less attention of the Court’s verdict number 92/PUU-X/2012. DPD deserves to apply a judicial review for similar constitutional matter. Besides, UU MD3 does not accommodate affirmative action of Women representatives. “Thus, for me UU MD3 since the very first place it was born to, has been amputated in its formal and material contents,” he added.

For his consideration, he argued that the review should have been granted.

Similar with Arief, Justice Maria said that UUMD3 Article 84 has never been induced in Problem Inventory List (DIM), but later found a place in DIM after the election result been announced. According to her, the legal product wasn’t delivered for legal reason, but for political interests instead. “For me, UU MD3 formation has harmed Article 22A 1945 Constitution, to which Act 12/2001 derived from,” she added.

Maria cited that the formation of UU MD3 opposed transparency and organizational principle as DPD is less contributive when the draft being mulled, as well as the ignorance smeared of affirmative action in women’s representatives. The formation also disadvantages for Constitution-based institution as the ruling took place after the election done.(Lulu Hanifah/mh/kun)

---