Plenary hearing of the judicial review of the MD3 Law, Tuesday (3/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The judicial review hearing of Law No. 17/2017 on the People\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3) was held again by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (3/4). Initially the hearing was to hear the statement of the government and the House, but both were not ready, so the hearing was postponed.

Director of Litigation of Legislations of Law and Human Rights MinistryLaw Ninik Hariwanti expressed the Government’s request of rescheduling of the hearing. She stated that the reschedule was proposed due to internal coordination for the preparation of the statement. In line with the Government, the House requested the postponement of the hearing due parliament meetings. "Well, then the hearing is postponed until Wednesday, April 11, 2018 at 11 a.m.," said Chief Justice Anwar Usman closed the session.

Several Petitioners requested a judicial review of Law No. 17/2017 on the People\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3) to the Constitutional Court (MK). Case No. 16/PUU-XVI/2018 was submitted by the Forum of Legal and Constitutional Studies (FKHK), Husdi Herman, and Kurniawan. While case No. 17/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) represented by Grace Natalie as Chairman and Raja Juli Antoni as Secretary General. Finally, case No. 18/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak and Josua Satria Collins.

The Petitioners review Article 73 paragraph (3), Article 73 paragraph (4) letters a and c, Article 122 letter k, and Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law. The provision being questioned by the Petitioners is subpoena by the House to citizens and legal entities affiliated with mass organizations. The Petitioners argue that the articles are an effort to play the House against the citizens as holders of sovereignty. This contradicts the House’s constitutional design as an instrument to control the behavior of those in power rather than the behavior of the people.

Meanwhile, in relation to the provision on the House of Representatives\\' ethics council (MKD) as set forth in Article 122 letter k of the MD3 Law, the Petitioners consider it contrary to the constitutional design of the House. The a quo article stipulates that the MKD may take a legal action and/or other steps against individuals, groups of persons, or legal entities that undermine the honor of the House and its members. Therefore, they requested that the articles be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)