---

Expert for Petitioners, SA Institute Director Suparji, lending his expertise in the judicial review of the MD3 Law, Tuesday (3/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

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 again by the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (3/7). The hearing of No. 39/PUU-XVI/2018 was to hear the information of the expert for the Petitioners, SA Institute Director Suparji. 

In his statement, Suparji explained that the Reform Era had made the Indonesian state into a state that has a modern democratic civilization. As an implementation of democratic values, there should be no partial treatment of the elements of the House. 

"This principle must be upheld and in its implementation should not be defeated by other considerations because justice is a universal value. In order to ensure the constitutionality of the regulation on the House elements, all House elements should be treated fairly, should not be [discriminated against], and should not be intervened by other House elements," said Suparji. 

Suparji said that Article 180A of the MD3 Law that reads "Before the decision of the Bill on State Budget between the Budget Agency and the Government at the First Level of Consultation as referred to in Article 170, the Budget Agency shall consult and report the results of the discussion of the State Budget Bill in meeting of the House leaders" is not in accordance with the values ​​contained in the Constitution. This is because the House leaders treat [other elements] discriminatively and can potentially intervene the Budget Agency. 

Meanwhile, the provision of Article 427A letter a of the MD3 Law that reads "At the time this law is in effect: Leaders of the People\'s Consultative Assembly and the House of Representatives from the incumbent factions continue to carry out their duties until the end of the membership period of the People\'s Consultative Assembly and the House of Representatives from the 2014 General Elections" is viewed as not in accordance with the values of the Constitution because it does not contain legal certainty in the event of leadership change. 

Meanwhile, at the same time, the Constitutional Court also held a judicial review of the MD3 Law with different Petitioners. Petitioners of Case No. 34/PUU-XVI/2018 only provided a written statement from the Petitioners\' Expert. Petitioners of Case No. 37/PUU-XVI/2018 withdrew the petition through an official letter. 

In his petition, Petitioner of Case No. 39/PUU-XVI/2018, Sutanto, argued that members of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) were not elected through the election, so their membership status depend on the membership status as members of the House (DPR) or the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD). The Petitioners based his petition on Article 1 of the General Elections Law that reads, "Elections are the means of the people’s sovereignty to elect members of DPR, DPD, President, and Vice President and to elect members of DPRD, directly, publicly, freely, secretly, honestly, and fairly in the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution.” 

According to the Petitioner, in view of Article 2 of the MD3 Law, MPR consists of members of DPR and DPD elected through the General Elections, so the provision on membership and membership procedure in DPR and DPD shall also apply mutatis mutandis to the membership status in MPR. 

Meanwhile, Petitioners of Case No. 34/PUU-XVI/2018, Nining Elitos and others, argued that the provision of Article 73 paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of the MD3 Law result in anyone can be summoned forcibly by members of the House. Under these rules, the House may use the police force to forcibly summon someone for any reason only because the person refuses to fulfill the House summons, which result in House members may commit extortion and threats against anyone. 

Furthermore, the Petitioners of Case No. 37/PUU-XVI/2018, the Legislative Monitoring Committee (KOPEL) along with other Petitioners argued that the legislation process of the MD3 Law violated at least two formal requirements for the establishment of legislation. First, the discussion of the MD3 Law was done by the Minister of Law and Human Rights without the knowledge and permission of the President. Secondly, the President did not give his consent, by not signing the ratification of the MD3 Law. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti) 

---