Muhammad Hafidz as the Petitioner when delivering the principal points of the petition for judicial review of the MD3 Law on Thursday (29/3) 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 challenged again in the Constitutional Court on Thursday (29/3). This time, cases registered with Number 25/PUU-XVI/2018 were filed by Muhammad Hafidz (Petitioner I) and Abda Khair Mufti (Petitioner II).
Both Petitioners object to the validity of Article 122 letter I and Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law claimed to have violated their constitutional rights. Article 122 letter l of the MD3 Law reads, "In performing its functions referred to in Article 121A, the Ethics Council is responsible for: l. "Taking legal steps and/or other measures against individuals, groups of people, or legal entities that undermine the dignity of the House of Representatives and Members of the House of Representatives." Article 245 paragraph (1) reads, "The summons and witness summons to the Members of the House of Representatives in relation to a criminal offense not related to the performance of the duties as referred to in Article 224 shall obtain written approval from the President after the consideration of the Ethics Council."
In the hearing, Abda Khair Mufti claimed the formulation in Article 122 letter l of the MD3 Law along the phrase of “legal action” was exaggerated and in fact is not only an affirmation and shows double standards of the rights of everyone who can be held accountable for their actions, including Petitioner I as a businessman working in the news media.
"As set forth in the Criminal Code and/or the Civil Code, it also seems to grant unlimited authority to the House Ethics Council or MKD with the existence of other norms of action in the a quo article," said Abda.
Abda explained that the Ethics Council has a duty to perform prevention, supervision, stabilization, investigation, to deciding ethics cases of members of the House of Representatives and parliamentary support system. Therefore, he added, the Ethics Council is one of the parliamentary support systems whose chairman and members are members of the House of Representatives, so it is unethical and there may even be a conflict of interest if considerations of the Ethics Council are needed when any members of the House will be summoned and on an alleged crime.
In addition, Abda added, taking into consideration the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 76/PUU-XII/2014 dated September 20, 2015, that mentions that the phrase written approval of the House Ethics Council in Article 245 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17/2014 is contrary to 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as \\\'written approval of the president.’ Thus, mutatis mutandis it becomes a legal consideration in the a quo petition.
Muhammad Hafidz, who was also present at the hearing, explained that Article 245 of the MD3 Law has eliminated the time limit of the issuance of written approval of the President, as already stipulated in Article 245 paragraph (2) of Law No. 17/2014. The provision on time limit for the President to issue written approval for the investigation of members of the House of Representatives due to allegations of criminal acts other than special criminal acts, becomes very important. "Because subjectively it does not rule out the possibility for the President not to give or suspend his written consent. Therefore, it is very relevant and necessary to keep the time limit of written approval for the investigation into House members," he added.
Revise Legal Standing
Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna responded to the argument of the petition that confirms that Petitioner I was the manager of the www.buruh-online.com website on legal and labor politics that also provided information, and views, or opinions on the performance of the House members over legislation processes related to the Manpower Law.
"If there is any proof of this, include the name, the types of activity that, for example, manage the information if there is something to do with this. You said that you had presented information, and views, or opinions on the people\\\'s representatives, didn’t you? If it is already there, it will be used as evidence to further convince us in assessing constitutional losses related to your legal standing," Justice Palguna said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra gave advice and notes to the Petitioners regarding their legal standing. For example, he added, if the Petitioners are acting as a private legal entity, the party entitled to represent the legal entity in accordance with its articles of association must be shown.
Thursday, March 29, 2018 | 17:53 WIB 67