Act 17/2014 (UU MD3) was being reviewed, again on Sunday (10/6) at MK Plenary Room. Purwakarta DPRD member, as well as Musi Rawas and Lahat DPRD members are registered as Plaintiffs.

In the petition, Refly Harun explained that the Plaintiffs have their rights harmed by the ruling of Article 376 verse (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and Article 377 verse (6) UU MD3. According to the Plaintiff, the ruling about DPRD speakership is based on political party chairs and neglects other DPRD members’ rights. Refly suggested that the petition was filed by 24 out from 45 DPRD members, meaning that the petition has fulfilled the quorum.

The Plaintiff explained that DPRD Speaker must be chosen by DPRD members, who probably know which member is the best to take the hot seat, instead of just automatically decided by the winning party alone. Besides, the winning party only occupied lesser seats in the house. The Plaintiffs considered both articles trespassed equal principle. UU MD3 has explained that DPRD and DPR share the duties in common, but split in opposing way to decide over each speakers.   

“To declare the Article 376 verse (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and Article 377 verse (6) UU MD3 along phrase “Settlement Regulation” opposes 1945 Constitution and non-binding,” he said

Justices’ Advices

In response to the petition, Panels of Justices, consist of Patrialis Akbar, Maria Farida Indrati, and Anwar Usman responded by giving several suggestions. Maria explained that the Plaintiffs need to perpetuate the difference between DPR and DPRD. “Are DPRD and DPR level? DPR is legal institution while DPRD is state’s instrument. If you asked for equal terms, then the petition must be reconstruct,” Maria said.(Lulu Anjarsari/mh/kun)