Act 17/2014 (UU MD3) curbs MK’s verdict number 92/PUU-X/2012 which adjudicates DPR’s function. This stimulates imbalance process between DPRD and DPD and sustaining corruptive legislative process. The statement was delivered by Zainal Arifin Mochtar who acted as expert in material review as pleaded by DPD on Monday (10/13) at MK Plenary Room.

“UU MD3 has deteriorated MK’ s verdict and sustaining imbalance and corruptive process between DPD and DPRD […] there is no even supervision mechanism, intra-parliament, to hich indicates clear violence against the law,” he said toward Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva.   

According to Zainal, strengthening DPD is mandatory, especially in this circumstance where DPD is being curbed by the ruling of UU MD3. This, at any substance, indicates déclassé legislative process in accordance of idle control in bicameral system. “It is needed to see any precaution on violence against the law committed by DPR and government as they neglect MK’s previous decision,” he emphasized.       

Another expert, Saldi Isra explained that by the petition, DPD just asked so that its authority and competence be accentuated.  

“They asked the Panel to refer MK’s decision issued two years ago, number 92/2012. The verdict stepped up effective legislative regulation, but suddenly diverted as Act 17/2014 came into effect. It is really a modest demand from DPD, if it went through there will be no other frenetic DPD,” he explained.

 Meanwhile, Widiarto objected that UU MD3 is packed with flaw since the very first of its formation of which objected violating 1945 Constitution given that DPD less involvement when the bill was drafted. DPD less involvement in drafting the bill is just another shackling form of DPD’s movement, not to name enclosing aspiration input and other efforts to balance relation between central and regional government.    

Furthermore, the Plaintiff also revealed that UU MD3 has harmed the way envoy instruction ruled. In Plaintiff’s opinion, each chamber should have gained its own bill. Draft sent by DPD is being detuned before it reached president’s desk.  Another discriminative implication is the prolonged investigation process for DPR members, to which may only be applied after Honorary Assembly’s permission.

According to the Plaintiff, UU MD3 was rudimentarily crafted and shall be declared non-binding due to its inconsiderate flaws.(Lulu Anjarsari/mh/kun)