Indonesian Policy and legal study researcher Bivitri Susanti said that permission requirement from Council Honorary Court to investigate house members is a form of judicial authority intervention.

According to her, although the permission is not related to the judiciary, its authority comprises broad judicial process. “Therefore, law enforcers in each trial process, from investigation to verdict, can’t be intervened,” she said at MK Plenary room, Jakarta, Thursday (10/9).

Bivitri was appointed as expert in judicial review on Act 17/2004 UU MD3 Article 245 in accordance to House members investigation which must be conducted after permission from honorary council. “For the name of legal state, in the sense of judiciary’s independency,  the permission regulation is errant,” she added.

Moreover, she delivered that to maintain respect for the state official as the symbol of governance’s supremacy, such permission must be issued by the President. Council Honorary Assembly is just a regular institution, which is not wired to any judiciary system.

Besides, the assembly contains representatives from all fractions, to which may indicate clash of interest potential.  DPR honorary board’s performance might as well seen as reference, in many cases the board seemed in doubt every time they took a decision, regardless how significant the board is.  

Discriminative Actions

Another expert, Jayadi Damanik said that Article 245 UU MD3 is discriminative. “The ruling spurs a vigilant to human rights and opposing equality before the law principle due to the tendencious privilege for the House members,” he said

He excerpted MK’s verdict 73/2011 which says President’s permission needed for regional executives investigation opposes the Constitution. such tendencious privilege also has been curbed and considered violating human rights as determined in MK’s verdict 6/2007.