Legal counsels of Petitioners of case No. 34/PUU-XVI/2018 Ivory Yinggar Ditya and Ayu Eza Tiara listening to the verdict of the judicial review of the Law on the People\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law) (23/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
The petition for 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) filed by the Chairman of the Congress of Indonesian Unions Alliance Nining Elitos and other Petitioners could not be accepted by the Constitutional Court (MK).
"The verdict of the decision heard, declares the petition of the Petitioners insofar as it concerns Article 73 paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (96); Article 122 letter l; and Article 245 paragraph (1) of Law Number 2 of 2018 unacceptable," said Plenary Chairman Anwar Usman in the presence of the other constitutional justice in the ruling hearing on Monday (23/7).
In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Court Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, the Court was of the opinion that Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law that reads, “The subpoena and request of statement to the Members of the House of Representatives in relation to a criminal offense not related to the performance of the duties as referred to in Article 224 shall obtain written approval from the President after the consideration of the Ethics Council."
Then, Justice Palguna explained that a contrario means that the Court is of the opinion that the written approval of the President in the context of Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law is constitutional or not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. However, the written approval of the President shall not apply to such matters as provided for in Article 245 paragraph (2) of the MD3 Law.
Therefore, according to the Court, the definition contained in Article 245 paragraph (2) of the MD3 Law is to subpoena and request information from members of the House of Representatives who were a) caught red-handed; b) suspected of a criminal offense punishable by death penalty or life sentence, or of a criminal offense against humanity and national security based on sufficient initial evidence; c) suspected of a special crime (which according to the Elucidation to Article 245 paragraph (2) letter c of the MD3 Law includes corruption, terrorism, gross human trafficking, narcotics abuse) needs no written approval from the President .
The stance of the Court concerning the constitutionality of the written approval of the President in the context of Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law is in line with the Court’s stance as set forth in the previous Court decisions. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that there is no reason to declare Article 245 paragraph (2) of MD3 Law contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioners\' argument concerning the unconstitutionality of Article 245 paragraph (2) of MD3 Law is unreasonable according to law.
"Based on all considerations, the Court is of the opinion that the a quo petition insofar as it relates to the review of the constitutionality of Article 73 paragraph (3), paragraph (4), paragraph (5), paragraph (6), Article 122 letter l, and Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 law has lost the object," said Justice Palguna who read the opinion of the Court for Case No. 34/PUU-XVI/2018.
Meanwhile, the petition for judicial review of the constitutionality of Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law along the phrase "The subpoena and request of statement to the Members of the House of Representatives in relation to a criminal offense not related to the performance of the duties as referred to in Article 224 shall obtain written approval from the President” mutatis mutandis applies in consideration of the Court in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 16/PUU-XVI/2018 whereas the petition of the Petitioners on the judicial review of the constitutionality of Article 245 paragraph (2) of the MD3 Law is unreasonable under the law.
At the same hearing, the Constitutional Court also decided that the petition for the judicial review of the MD3 Law for case No. 39/PUU-XVI/2018 filed by Sutanto unacceptable. In the opinion, the Court declared that there was no constitutional impairment suffered by the Petitioner, whether actual or potential, which according to logical reasoning can be ensured by the enactment of Article 180A and Article 427A letter a of the MD3 Law.
Accordingly, according to the Court, there is no causal relationship between the losses claimed by the Petitioner and the enactment of the articles in the a quo law petitioned for review. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner did not have the legal standing to file the petition.
Petitioners of Case No. 34/PUU-XVI/2018, Nining Elitos and others, argued that Article 73 paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) of the MD3 Law had resulted in any person being able to be subpoenaed for any reason by House members. The provision allows the House to use police force to subpoena any individual for any reason just because the individual refuses to respond to the House subpoena, resulting in House members being able to extort and threat any individual.
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 Petitioner based his petition on Article 1 of the Election 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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)
Tuesday, July 24, 2018 | 09:50 WIB 96