Petitioners Hermanto, Naomi Patioran, and Benny R. B. Kowel in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 17/2014 on People\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) (MD3 Law), Tuesday (10/10)) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court. Photo by PR/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court held a judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) (MD3 Law), Tuesday (10/10) at the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court. Petition No. 104/PUU-XIV/2016 was filed by several individual petitioners who are Participants of the 2014 General Elections as Independent Candidate/Candidate Member of East Kalimantan Province DPD.

The Court cannot accept the petition. "The principal of the petition is not granted," said the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat.

In the Court’s opinion, Justice Maria Farida Indrati first considered the Petitioners’ legal standing as individual citizens who participated in the 2014 Legislative Election as a candidate member of the East Kalimantan Province DPD. The Court believes that although the election of North Kalimantan Province DPD members was executed, but it cannot be accepted as the implementation of the 2014 elections of DPD Members of North Kalimantan Province. According to the Court, Justice Maria continued, because in 2014 there was no DPD Elections Period 2014-2019 in North Kalimantan Province, it doesn’t mean that the citizens of North Kalimantan Province did not have representatives in DPD. In addition, the Court believes that logically the Petitioners’ votes of course come from the voters throughout the electoral districts (dapil) of East Kalimantan Province and not only from the voters in some electoral districts which later became the North Kalimantan Province.

"Therefore, if the Petitioners’ argument was granted, North Kalimantan Province DPD seats would be filled by East Kalimantan Province DPD candidate members for who currently ranked 5^th to 8^th. This would clearly violate the concept of election of DPD members, which should represent the province where the members were elected," explained Justice Maria in the presence of the Petitioners who attended the hearing.

According to the Court, the Petitioners’ participation as DPD member candidates in the election of East Kalimantan Province DPD members Year 2014 shows that from the beginning the Petitioners have accepted the absence of the election and wished to become members of East Kalimantan Province DPD. In addition, the a quo law petition had been filed long after the election, especially after the vote recapitulation was done and the Petitioners found their results from the 7^th, 8^th, 9^th, and 11^th rankings to 5^th, 6^th, 7^th, and 8^th. With the results, the Petitioners had the opportunity to become DPD members of North Kalimantan Province Year 2014 according to their rankings. "Considering based on those considerations, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners have no legal standing to file the a quo petition," Justice Maria read the Constitutional Court’s considerations. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)