Rusdi Sanmas, attorney of the Petitioner, delivering principal points of petition revision for the judicial review of the MD3 Law, Wednesday (4/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Executive Board of the Indonesian Islamic Student Movement (PB PMII) revised the petition related to the judicial review of Article 73 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) letters a and c of Law No. 2/2018 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 17/2014 on the People\\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law). The hearing for case No. 21/PUU-XVI/2018 took place Wednesday (4/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Rusdi Sanmas as attorney of the Petitioner explained that the Petitioner had revised the petition in accordance with the advice of the panel of justices in the previous session. The Petitioner explained that he had revised the petitum of the petition. "Article 73 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) letters a and c of Law Number 2 of 2018 regarding the Second Amendment to Law Number 17 of 2014 on the People\\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law) is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force," Rusdi explained, reading the revision of the petitum.

On the case filed by Agus Mulyono Herlambang, Chairman of the Executive Board of the Indonesian Islamic Student Movement (PB PMII), Rusdi stated that Article 122 letter i and Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law are against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and have no binding legal force.

"To order the inclusion of this decision in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia, as is appropriate. Or if the Panel of Justices of the Constitutional Court has of another opinion, please make the verdict as fair as possible," Rusdi explained before the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

Previously, 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. 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 the interpretation of Article 73 paragraph (3), Article 73 paragraph (4), Article 122 letter k, and Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law that regulate the immunity right. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)