Constitutional law expert of Gadjah Mada University (UGM), Zainal Arifin Mochtar, as expert for the Petitioners delivered his statement in the follow-up hearing of the judicial review of the Law on MPR, DPR, DPRD, and DPD (MD3 Law) on Thursday (19/4) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Subpoena by the House of Representatives (DPR) as mentioned in Article 73 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2/2018 on the People\\\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law) should be linked to the oversight function that is conceptually addressed to the government. If it is interpreted as anyone can be subpoenaed involuntarily in the framework of the House of Representatives exercising its authority and duties, it will be dangerous. This was conveyed by constitutional law expert of Gadjah Mada University (UGM), Zainal Arifin Mochtar, as the Petitioners’ expert in the MD3 Law hearing on Thursday (19/4). 

In his statement, Zainal said that the a quo article should be returned to the concept of government oversight by the House. The concept of House oversight aimed at the people is not in line with the function and role of the House. "The oversight from the beginning is only directed to the Government. Even interpreted in order to run the law, this is only directed to the Government in running the law in government function. If it is to be applied, it is only applied to the person being investigated or questioned," he said before the Panel of Justices led by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman. 

Zainal added that Article 73 paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6) illustrates the strengthening of the concept of subpoena to people who have judged to have insulted the dignity of the House. According to him, the legal process on law violators is the domain of law enforcement. "This article actually explains that legal process can be done by the House, by using the Police the House can forcefully summon and detain people who insult the House," he explained as expert on Case No. 16/PUU-XVI/2018. 

Furthermore, Zainal refers to Article 122 letter I of the MD3 Law an elastic article. House members may use this article to prosecute persons who are considered insulted their dignity. On the other hand, the public space will be filled with debate about the extent of acts considered undermining the House. 

Aside from Zainal, an expert was also presented by Petitioners Case No. 18/PUU-XVI/2018, Sony Maulana Sikumbang. He criticized the inconsistent and ineffective authority of the House ethics council (MKD). On the other hand, the addition of the MKD\\\\'s duty to take legal actions and/or other steps against individual persons, groups of individuals, or legal entities that undermine the dignity of the House and House members shows negligence in paying attention to ensure the consistency of regulations in overcoming the issue of the enforcement of House dignity. 

"This would lead to inconsistencies that would result in the chaos in the structure of these laws and regulations and the spirit of these legislations no longer properly understood by the intended parties. MKD would be confused as to what to do; members would also not feel like an claimant," he said.

On the occasion, there was also a hearing for Cases No. 25, 26, 28/PUU-XVI/2018. The hearing was originally set to hear the statement of the Government. However, the Government would use the President\\\\'s statement in the previous hearing for Cases No. 16, 17, 18/PUU-XVI/2018. "In principle, the Government remains in its stance that, as stated in the previous Presidential Decree," Purwoko explained representing the Government in the session chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman. 

As is known, a number of parties filed a judicial review of Act No. 2/2018 on MPR, DPR, DPRD, and DPD (MD3) to the Constitutional Court (MK). 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 the 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. In addition, the Petitioners of case No. 25 argued that 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. Then the Petitioners examine Article 73 paragraph (3), Article 73 Paragraph (4) letters a and c of the MD3 Law which is deemed to limit the right of citizens to propose or state their thoughts, opinions and aspirations to the legislative body (MPR, DPRD, DPRD, DPD) . This is contrary to the principle of freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 28, Article 28C Paragraph (2) and Article 28E Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. With such restrictions, the citizens have lost the opportunity to freely issue their thoughts or opinions, to fight for their rights build the community, nation and country. (Arif Satriantoro/Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)