---

Protest rally in front of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Law No. 2/2018 on the People\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3) was again reviewed at the Constitutional Court (MK) by several parties. The Indonesian Catholic Students Association (PMKRI) and individuals filed a judicial review of Article 73 paragraph (3), paragraph (4) letters a and c, and paragraph (5), as well as Article 122 letter k, and Article 245 paragraph (1) as Petitioners No. 26/PUU-XVI/2018. Meanwhile, Presidium Rakyat Menggugat listed as Petitioners No. 28/PUU-XVI/2018 reviews Article 73 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) letters a and c, Article 122 letter k, and Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law.

PMKRI attorney Bernadus Barat Daya stated that Article 73 paragraph (3), paragraph 4 letters a and c, and paragraph (5) of the MD3 Law restrict the right of citizens to express thoughts, opinions, and aspirations to the legislative agencies (MPR, DPRD, DPD). The Petitioners consider the authority of "subpoena" in those articles contrary to the legal principles existing in Indonesia and contrary to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), and the Law on Regional Autonomy.

"The articles, in addition to disrupting the constitutional lines set forth in the 1945 Constitution, are also an anti-democracy and threaten the freedom of opinion of citizens," he asserted in the session led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

The Petitioners also argued that the word "compulsory" in case of subpoena by the House is still followed by the act "holding hostage" as regulated in Article 73 paragraph (6) of the MD3 Law. According to the Petitioners, the House tried to keep itself from public criticism by making the article a means to protect itself from the threat of penalty. It not only results in an unfair House response to public criticism, but also its deliberate ignoring of the principle of equality before the law.

As one of the state institutions, Bernadus continued, the House of Representatives should not dominate the existing authority in other state institutions, that is, the executive or judiciary. In the MD3 Law context, the House has added \'power\' or great authority that enables it to control the authority of other state institutions excessively inextricably, which potentially lead to deviation or abuse of power.

On the other hand, Bernadus added, Article 122 letter k of the MD3 Law might potentially create multiple interpretations in its application considering the phrase "undermine the honor" is relative, tentative, and highly subjective. "The [phrase] \'undermine the honor of the House and its members" may be arbitrarily applied according to subjective interpretations or political interests of the members of the House. This article has the potential to [incriminate] someone if he/she is deemed to have allegedly degraded the dignity and honor of the House of Representatives and its members," he explained.

Finally, he thinks that Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law, which regulates the subpoena and request of statement to House members having to obtain written approval from the President after consideration from the House ethics council, not in accordance with the principle of equality before the law. That is because it removes the constitutional rights of law enforcers who will take legal action such as examination, investigation, and other law enforcement efforts against House members.

Meanwhile, Rinto Wardana as attorney of hukum Presidium Rakyat Menggugat claimed that the MD3 Law would stop citizen control on legislative performance. On the other hand, the MD3 Law also raises fear because someone who expresses opinions can be charged by House members. "The right of the House to subpoena, to forcibly summon with authority and power can lead to human rights violations and harm free speech," he explained.

Therefore, in its petitum, the Petitioners requested that the articles submitted be revoked and declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the Petitioners’ petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo requested that the Petitioners clarify their legal standing. This is because the Petitioners of the case No. 28/PUU-XVI/2018 is the PMKRI of East Jakarta, North Jakarta, South Jakarta, and West Jakarta branches. He stated that the Petitioners should describe PMKRI that is entitled to represent the organization according to its statute/bylaws. "If this is not clear, it can eliminate the legal standing of the Petitioners," he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra requested that Petitioners No. 28/PUU-XVI/2018 to check the special power of attorney because there is a Petitioner listed in the special power of attorney, but not listed in the petition. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---