---

Revision hearing of judicial review of the MD3 Law on Monday (28/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held a follow-up hearing 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) on Monday 28/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 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. 

In this petition revision hearing, Veri Junaidi as legal counsel of the Petitioners of Case No. 37/PUU-XVI/2018 said that Petitioners III–XXX have complemented and strengthened their legal standing by adding a norm for reference, that is, Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution on the people\'s sovereignty. According to him, the a quo law potentially reduces or keeps his clients from participating freely in guarding the decision making of the House, as stated in Article 28E paragraph (3) on freedom of expression. 

Formal Defect

In relation to formal review, Veri said that his clients have strengthened a sub-argument on the existence of a formal defect in the implementation of the president\'s mandate by the Minister of Law and Human Rights in the discussion of the a quo law. In the discussion, Veri added, there are matters that the Minister of Law and Human Rights overstepped. To that end, the Petitioners revised the petitum especially related to the differentiation between the petitum for formal and material reviews. 

"So, what is requested to be canceled is the revision of the law of, that is, Law No. 2 of 2018. So, if the revision process is considered void in the discussion, then by itself it returns to the old law," Veri explained before the hearing led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, in the presence of Constitutional Court Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M.P. Sitompul. 

At the same hearing, Petitioner of the Case No. 39/PUU-XVI/2018 through legal counsel Sabelo Gayo conveyed that although he is not a member of the People\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, or Regional Legislative Council (MPR, DPR, DPD or DPRD), as an individual citizen he still has constitutional rights in the legislative election because the legislative system adopted in Indonesia is the representative system. "So, both directly and indirectly, individual Indonesian Petitioner has a legal standing," Sabela explained. 

Canceled

Furthermore, in relation to Article 427A letter a of the a quo law, Sabelo said, if the chairman or member of the council in his/her leadership commits a criminal act or an immoral act, he/she cannot be replaced because of the provision of the a quo law. "Thus, Article 427A letter a must be canceled and have no binding legal force," explained Sabelo. 

In the previous hearing, Petitioners of Case No. 37/PUU-XVI/2018 explained their constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 73 paragraph (3), Article 245, and Article 122 letter l of the MD3 Law. As they positioned themselves as critical partners of the House of Representatives in every policy making, they felt disadvantaged by the three articles. Particularly if they gave sharp criticism against the House as the representatives of the people. 

The Petitioner of Case No. 39/PUU-XVI/2018 filed a petition for judicial review of Article 180A and Article 427A letter a of the MD3 Law agaisnt Article 2 paragraph (1), Article 22E paragraph (2), Article 22E paragraph (3), and Article 23 of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioner, he has the constitutional right to elect members of DPR (House of Representatives), DPD (Regional Representatives Council), or DPRD (Regional Legislative Council). Thus, the a quo article is contrary to the sense of justice, legal certainty, and equality in the eye of the law. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---