La Radi Eno as attorney of the Petitioner after submitting the principal of the petition in the judicial review hearing of the MD3 Law on Thursday (22/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Law No. 2/2018 on the People\\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law) were reviewed again in the Constitutional Court (MK). Agus Mulyono Herlambang as the Chairman of the Executive Board of the Indonesian Islamic Student Movement (PB PMII) reviewed Article 73 paragraph (3), Article 73 paragraph (4), Article 122 letter k, and Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law. The first hearing of case No. 21/PUU-XVI/2018 was held on Thursday (22/3) afternoon. 

In his petition, the Petitioner considered the reasons for subpoena contrary to the role and function of the People\\\'s Legislative Assembly (House of Representatives), which is serving the aspirations and interests of all the people. According to the Petitioner, the legal action that could be taken by the House’s ethics council (MKD) has the potential to silence the people\\\'s voice. 

"The MD3 Law grants immunity right to House members against alleged criminal acts. This is clearly an unfair treatment that harms the sense of justice because it concerns House members as individuals, not in performing their duties as House members. So, in essence, [House members] must return to [their] capacity as an ordinary citizen. The legal procedures related to subpoena and examination in the event of any alleged criminal act applying to all citizens should also apply to House members," said La Radi Eno as attorney of the Petitioner. 

In addition, the Petitioner assumes that the guarantee of legal certainty is the right of every citizen, so the provision on immunity right of House members is basically unconstitutional. Therefore, the Petitioner requested an interpretation of the article regulating that right. 

Revises Legal Standing 

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra highlighted the legal standing. "When explaining the identity of the Petitioner, the Principal in this case is a private employee. However, what is described [in the petition] is not [his identity as] a private employee, but [as] Chairman of PMII. Therefore, just revise [the legal standing] into Chairman of the Indonesian Islamic Student Association. So, it will be more in line with the explanation of his identity or existing legal standing," Justice Saldi suggested. 

Justice Saldi also questioned 10 articles in the 1945 Constitution that became points of reference. "Ten articles in the Constitution are mentioned, but they do not appear in your posita. If they are not there, do not force them to be; it is okay to delete them," he said. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna informed that the petition for judicial review of the law filed by the Petitioner has often been registered to the Constitutional Court. He suggested that the Petitioner join a similar petitioner. 

"However, if you want to keep going, the Court will serve. If you decide to wait for verdict [for existing cases, it is okay]. Because until today there are three, four [cases reviewing] the same articles, only by different petitioners. There are even petitioners from a party whose hearing you may also have monitored. It comes down to the choices you will make. If you continue to advance, please consider the advice of the justices," said Justice Palguna. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)