Indonesian Women Coalition for Justice and Democracy (KPI), Center of Women’s Political Development and APIK foundation are struggling for Women’s representative chair in DPR.

The Applicants called for 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) UU MD3. The already controversial and frenetic Act has been accused for removing all women’s rights especially when it comes to representing in chairs of house’s position. The Act, explicitly remains silent to Women’s representative threshold, presumably sparks less favor to the women.

“Guaranteeing women representative in Act 27/2009 by stating phrase concerning women representative for DPR chairs have been removed completely in the newest Act 17/2014 (UU MD3),” Attorney Nur Amalia said in the preliminary trial led by Constitutional Justice, Patrialis Akbar, Monday (9/29).

According to argument, the Applicants asked MK to issue constitutional interpretation.

Justices Advices

In response to the request, Justice Aswanto suggested the Applicants to define their constitutional loss as for the Act ruling. “It must further be explained, how could the removal of 30 % phrase decrease women’s position in the house,” he said.

He also suggested more elaborative connections to the Articles in 1945 Constitution. “Posita must refer to the Articles of 1945 Constitution in which will be set as the pole,” he added.  

Meanwhile Justice Wahiduddin Adams suggested the Applicant to fix their petitum by only just using “granting” phrase. “Not just accepting, granting comprises accepting, granting all the request,” he said.(Lulu Hanifah/mh)