---

Applicant’s Attorney Siswadi (middle) delivers petition points at judicial review session on Act of Legislative Institutions (UU MD3), on Tuesday (21/9) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court again holds judicial review session on Act Number 17 Year 2014 of Legislative Institutions (Undang-Undang Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah –UU MD3), on Tuesday (21/9) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.. Several Papuan residents file petition on Act a quo.

Applicant’s Attorney Siswadi reveals that the Applicant has conducted petition revision in accordance with Justice Panel inputs. “Initially we use several Articles in the 1945 Constitution as touchstone. However, we then revise and only use one Article,” said Siswadi.  

Moreover, Siswadi explains that his party has asserted their loss, which is potential violation towards Applicant’s constitutional rights if Article 80 letter j Act a quo implemented in form of aspiration fund.

The Applicant explains that his party has attached evidences on House of Representatives Regulation draft regarding procedure of proposing electoral district development program. The draft regulates program proposal in written which made by political fraction secretariat. “We consider such regulation potentially violates Applicant’s constitutional rights, Your Honor,” said Siswaji.

Previously, six Papuan residents Abraham Pelamonia, Yosep Adi, Isay Wenda, Samuel Fruaro, Hasael Ayub Wombay,  and Echletus Jefry Maximus Sawaki files the petition which registered in Case Number 106/PUU-XIII/2015. 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. 

On preliminary session, the Applicant argues electoral district representation changing affects aspiration fund distribution. The Applicant then simulates the distribution, in which one district (one DPR member) receives minimum fund of 20 billion Rupiahs. He assesses such distribution disadvantages Papuan residents due to Papua only have 10 representatives and the fund will be piled up in Java. The Applicant requests the Court to declare the Article a quo contrary to the Constitution. (Ilham WM/Prasetyo Adi N)

 

---