Plenary petition revision for the judicial review of the MD3 Law on Tuesday (17/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The judicial review of No. 2/2018 on the People\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3) resumed on Tuesday (17/4). This time, the agenda of the case No. 26/PUU-XVI/2018 and No. 28/PUU-XVI/2018 was to hear the petition revision. 

The attorney of the Petitioners No. 26/PUU-XVI/2018, Bernadus Barat Daya, explained that his client had added an article on PMKRI statute/bylaws. In addition, he also attached an additional letter showing proof of the executive committee of PMKRI. Then he also included the notary deed of PMKRI. "Also, in the petitum, we reduced much of the explanation because we have summarized it," he said in the session led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra. 

Meanwhile, attorney of Petitioners No. 28/PUU-XVI/2018, Rinto Wardana, has reinforced the reasons for material review and the format of the petition. He also said his clients had added evidence. As for the petitum, Rinto has made revisions according to the advice of the panel of justices in the previous session. 

Before closing the hearing, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra informed that the two cases would be combined with another petition for judicial review of the MD3 Law. "So, we think about making [hearings for these seven petitions] more efficient, effective, and faster. So, we combine all," he explained. The next hearing, Justice Saldi said, will be held on Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 11 a.m. 

This petition was filed by the Indonesian Catholic Students Association (PMKRI) along with some individuals. They submitted 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). Meanwhile, Presidium Rakyat Menggugat 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.

The Petitioners argue that the articles being reviewed restrict the right of citizens to file or express their 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. 

Meanwhile, 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. Therefore, in its petitum, the Petitioners requested that the articles submitted be revoked and declared contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)