---

Applicant’s Attorney Donny Tri Istiqomah delivers petition points at preliminary session on Act of Legislative Institutions, on Wednesday (9/9), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi --MK) holds preliminary judicial review session on Act Number 17 Year 2014 of Legislative Institutions (Undang-Undang Nomor 17 Tahun 2014 tentang Majelis Permusyaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah –UU MD3), on Wednesday (9/9), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Six Papua residents file petition which registered in Case Number 106/PUU-XIII/2015; Abraham Pelamonia, Yosep Adi, Isay Wenda, Samuel Fruaro, Hasael Ayub Wombay, and Echletus Jefry Maximus Sawaki.

Representing by Applicant’s Attorney Donny Tri Istiqomah, the Applicant considers their constitutional rights violated by the enactment of Article 80 letter j Act of Legislative Institutions regarding House of Representatives’ authority to propose development program in respective electoral region, known as aspiration fund. Article 80 letter j Act of Legislative Institutions stated ‘Member of the House of Representatives is entitled to: (j) propose and conduct development program in respective electoral region’ (‘‘Anggota DPR berhak (j) mengusulkan dan memperjuangkan program pembangunan daerah pemilihan’).

The Applicant assesses the provision in Article 80 letter j Act of Legislative Institutions contrary to the principle of people’s representative. According to the Applicant, the principle of people’s representative is conducted via political parties in legislative institutions, as stipulated in Article 22E (3) the 1945 Constitution. The Constitution stated that the participant in House of Representatives Election and Regional Representative Council Election is political parties. However, Article 80 letter j Act of Legislative Institutions has changed people’s representative principle; from political parties to electoral regions. The Applicant assesses such change contrary to the 1945 Constitution.  

Moreover, the Applicant argues the Articles reviewed are contrary to the principle of people’s sovereignty, because electoral regions indirectly change into sovereign area resulted by its representative in the House of Representatives. According to the Applicant, such matter potentially brings an understanding of other form of sovereignty, which is electoral region’s sovereignty. The Applicant assesses such understanding is contrary to the principle of unitary state and the principle of people’s sovereignty as stipulated in Article 1 (1) and (2) the 1945 Constitution.

“The enactment of Article 80 letter j causes people’s representative distort into electoral region representative, which indirectly seem a new sovereignty established in Indonesia instead of people’s sovereignty; electoral region sovereignty,” said him in front of Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman.

The Applicant says the change of electoral region representative affects aspiration fund distribution. The Applicant then simulates the distribution of aspiration fund, in which one electoral region (one DPR member) receives aspiration fund at least 20 billion Rupiahs. “For Papua electoral region, West Papua only receives 60 billion Rupiahs. Entire Papua only receives 200 billion Rupiahs because Papua is only got 10 representative seats. If aspiration fund agreed by Finance Minister, the money will be piled up in Java Island only,” said him.

By providing privilege to propose electoral region development program, the Applicant assesses such privilege open opportunity to be interpreted as ‘payback’ action. The fund could be used for pay back political support acquired by DPR members, either in form of vote or contribution in campaign period.

According to the Applicant, the aspiration fund is also potentially used for bribing DPR members. DPR members could possibly ask for compensation to regional government because they have significant role in proposing development program regional government requested for.

Under the argument above, the Applicant requests the Constitutional Court to declare Article 80 letter j Act Number 17 Year 2014 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no legal binding.

Responding the petition, Justice Panel gives several inputs to the Applicant. Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati advises the Applicant to revise their legal standing. “You are not related with this Article. The Article regulates the DPR who entitled to conduct regional aspiration,” explained her.

Meanwhile Constitutional Justice Manahan MP Sitompul assesses Applicant’s petition is merely concern on things that yet occurred. “Aspiration fund is yet implemented and yet accepted. However, it is also need to be questioned whether regional development budget is based on electoral region,” said him.

Justice Panel gives 14 work days for the Applicant to revise the petition. The next session will be scheduled on petition revision. (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N) 

 

 

---