Expert presented by the petitioners of the judicial review of the MD3 Law =, Wednesday (30/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

In the context of democratic empowerment and community justice viewed from the ethics of political communication, several articles in the MD3 Law have injured democracy. This was conveyed by Muhammad Faisal as an expert on Case No. 25/PUU-XVI/2018 in the follow-up hearing on Law No. 2/2018 on the People\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3), Wednesday (30/5).

Faisal also added that Article 122 letter l regulates the authority of the House of Representatives Ethics Council or MKD in taking legal steps and/or other steps against individuals, groups of people, or legal entities that demean the honor of the House and its members for their critics, who are the mandate giver to House members. According to him, this article is a form of criminalization of people who are critical of the House even though the enforcement is carried out by the police.

"The article can build the ego and emotions of House members who [can and may] act authoritatively, and arbitrarily. As a result, House members will be further away from the principles of political ethics, until they are no longer within reach of the people, except for the general elections held every 5 years," he said before the Panel of Justices led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman.

Regarding Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law, the political communication expert explained that it also regulates the requirements of examination of House members on suspicion of criminal acts by the legal apparatus, which must first obtain consideration of the Ethics Council before obtaining a written approval from the President. The article, he explained, became a kind of soft article that could violate ethics because it would benefit those in power.

"This article seems to be a shield or fortress for House members so that they are not easily processed by law when someday they are suspected of a criminal act, even though administrative measures has the need to be regulated, so the Expert agrees with the wishes of the Petitioners following the time limit of the president\'s approval," Faisal explained.

Meanwhile, Sabam Leo Batubara as expert for the Petitioners of Case No. 26/PUU-XVI/2018 stated that the authority of the Ethics Council (MKD) to take legal steps and/or other steps against individuals, groups, or legal entities that demean the honor of the House and its members is not appropriate. Because, he added, MKD is the House\'s ethical institution. The rules of the ethical institution are of, by, and for its own people. The authority to take legal steps for the House equals the authority of the judiciary. This is, according to him, damages the Indonesian state system.

Previously, Petitioners of Cases No. 16/PUU-XVI/2018, 17/PUU-XVI/2018, 18/PUU-XVI/2018, 21/PUU-XVI/2018, 25/PUU-XVI/2018, 26/PUU-XVI/2018, 28/PUU-XVI/2018, 34/PUU-XVI/2018, and 37/PUU-XVI/2018 filed a judicial review of the MD3 Law 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 provision challenged by the Petitioners is that on the summons by the House to mass organizations members and legal entities based on mass organizations. Meanwhile, Petitioner of Case No. 39/PUU-XVI/2018 conducted a material review of Article 180A and Article 427A letter a. According to the Petitioners, due to the a quo articles the people felt subject to criminalization if they criticize the House. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti))