Veri Junaidi as legal counsel of Petitioners of Case 37/PUU-XVI/2018 delivering the principal points of the petition for judicial review of the MD3 Law on Monday (14/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.
The Constitutional Court held a preliminary hearing on 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) on Monday (14/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The cases No. 37/PUU-XVI/2018 and 39/PUU-XVI/2018 were filed by the Legislative Monitoring Committee (Kopel); the Indonesian Foundation to Strengthen Civil Society\'s Participation, Partnership and Initiatives (Yappika); and a number of individual citizens.
The Petitioners of Case 37/PUU-XVI/2018 through legal counsel Veri Junaidi explained their constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 73 paragraph (3), Article 245, and Article 122 letter l of the MD3 Law. Kopel and Yappika, who position themselves as critical counterparts of the House of Representatives in every policy making, felt disadvantaged by the three articles, especially as they often give sharp criticism against the House as the representatives of the people. "Therefore, with the enactment of the a quo provision, it may potentially impair the constitutional rights of the Petitioners and the Petitioners may potentially be criminalized," explained Veri in the session presided over by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, in the presence of Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Maria Farida Indrati.
In addition, Veri also argued that the enforceability of those articles has been detrimental to the legal interests and efforts of the Petitioners to monitor and deliver aspirations in order to realize the implementation of the democratic system in the state life.
The other petitioners who are individual petitioners consistently participate in using their voting right to elect the President and Vice President as well as legislative members, who are under the House of Representatives as the representative of the people. Overall, the formation of the MD3 Law, Veri added, especially the articles petitioned for judicial review, is based solely on the interests of political parties and is contrary to the principle of the formation of laws. The contradiction of the principle of the formation of the law, Veri added, among others, is that there is no public consultation in the preparation of the a quo law. Subsequently, the content of the articles petitioned is not listed in academic texts and the material is inconsistent with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 76/PUU-XII/2014.
In addition, the Petitioners argued that forced summons to any person threatens public participation for the House of Representatives, the consideration of the House’s ethic council (MKD) in the summons of House members against the Constitutional Court\'s Decision, as well as creates inequality of citizens before the law. The authority of the MKD to process persons deemed to have undermined the House or its members is an effort to silence freedom of thought and opinion.
In the same session, the Petitioner of Case 39/PUU-XVI/2018 through legal counsel Sabela Gayo filed a petition for judicial review of Article 180A and Article 427A letter a of the MD3 Law against Article 2 paragraph (1), Article 22E paragraph (2), Article 22E paragraph (3), and Article 23 of the 1945 Constitution. Sabela explained that the Petitioner has the constitutional right to elect members of DPR (House of Representatives), DPD (Regional Representatives Council), or DPRD (Regional Legislative Council). In essence, Sabela explained, the a quo articles contradict the sense of justice, legal certainty, and equality in the eyes of the law. "So, the Petitioner has a legal interest in state institutions that are consistent with the rule of law, in this case state institutions," explained Sabela.
Constitutional Losses
In response to the two petitions, Constitutional Court Justice Arief Hidayat responded to the Petitioners of Case 37/PUU-XVI/2018 by requesting that the individual Petitioners elaborate their constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the a quo law. This is because the legal standing of the individual Petitioners is different from that of Kopel and Yappika, which are legal entities. "The description of constitutional right is incomplete and [you] have not described or elaborated the constitutional impairment suffered as individuals," he advised.
Likewise, to Petitioner of Case 39/PUU-XVI/2018, Justice Arief requested that the Petitioner clarify his legal standing and constitutional impairment, and improve the posita and petitum that were considered unreasonable.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati observed the statement of Petitioners 37/PUU-XVI/2018 and stated that the formation of the law must be accompanied by a complete academic script. In relation to that, she asked the Petitioners to study the concept of a good academic script. "If you want a good academic script and can put aside the bill into law formally, it\'s a bit difficult," she explained.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra observed the statement of Petitioners 37/PUU-XVI/2018 that the President did not participate in signing the MD3 Law so it was considered invalid. For this matter, Justice Saldi requested that the Petitioners not equate agreement with veto right. "So please study the two very different concepts," he explained.
Before concluding the hearing, Justice Saldi reminded the Petitioners to submit the petition revision by no later than Monday, May 28, 2018 at 10.00 a.m. to the Court\'s Registrar. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Tuesday, May 15, 2018 | 14:55 WIB 69