---

Margarito Kamis (right) as expert giving his testimony in the follow-up hearing of Law No. 2 of 2018 on the People\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council on Thursday (3/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

A follow-up hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2/2018 on the People\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law) was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (3/5). The session heard the experts for Petitioners of cases No. 16, 17, and 18/PUU-XVI/2018. 

Expert for Petitioner of Case No. 16/PUU-XVI/2018, Margarito Kamis, explained that subpoena as mentioned in Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law is imperative. According to him, if this function is implemented, the House will undergo function change to become a conventional law enforcement agency that enforces the law for criminal cases. This, he added, is not in accordance with the Constitution. In addition, the authority is not in accordance with the functions of the House as the representative of the people. 

"In my opinion, subpoena is contrary to the sovereignty of the House of Representatives, and [in case of] the House as the representation of the people, I do not think it is constitutional to justify subpoena of all people for all kinds of functions of the House," Margarito said. 

Ethics Council (MKD): A Tool for the House of Representatives

Meanwhile, Expert for Petitioners No.17/PUU-XVI/2018, Bivitri Susanti, explained that the House should focus on constitutional functions. She considered the MKD as the House’s tools designed to maintain the honor of the House by ensuring the implementation of the House’s ethical values. The MKD, she added, should target the public because it will distance the House as the representation of the people.

"It (the MKD) is an institution that works inwardly into its own members. The intention of the House to create a legal procedure to investigate acts undermining the House will not preserve the dignity of the House as the representative of the people, but it will build a barrier between the represented and the representing," explained the Founder of the Center of Indonesian Legal and Policies Studies (PSHK) and the Indonesia Jentera School of Law. 

Obscures the Functions of the House

Related to the amended MD3 Law, Bivitri said that MD3 Law should be able to describe the legislative, supervisory, and budgetary functions of the House. However, she added, it obscures the House’s constitutional status and function. 

"The amended MD3 Law to me is actually not just an open legal policy. The amended MD3 Law obscures the House’s constitutional status and function as the representative body of the people by creating a higher barrier. The House’s view that there is no constitutional issue with this law, in my opinion, is born from a narrow and textual perspective," she explained.

The Petitioners of cases No. 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 28/PUU-XVI/2018 filed a judicial review of Law No. 2/2018 on the People\\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3) to the Constitutional Court. 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 Petitioners questioned the provision on subpoena of citizens and legal entities affiliated with mass organizations by the House of Representatives. 

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 argue that the provision of Article 122 letter l of the MD3 Law along the phrase “legal action” is excessive and is in fact an affirmation and shows a double standard of the rights of any person who can be held accountable for their actions. 

According to the Petitioners, Article 73 paragraph (3), Article 73 Paragraph (4) letters a and c of the MD3 Law limit the rights of citizens to propose or state their thoughts, opinions, and aspirations to the legislative bodies (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 voice their thoughts or opinions, to fight for their rights to build the community, nation, and country. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti))

---