---

Constitutional Court researcher M. Mahrus Ali welcoming the Student Executive Body (BEM) of the Law Faculty of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta, Tuesday (9/10) in the Constitutional Court’s Delegation Room. Photo by Humas MK/Yuwandi.

Constitutional Court researcher M. Mahrus Ali said a recent Constitutional Court decision ruled that Regional Representatives Council (DPD) candidates have to step down from the management of political parties.

“[That is] because the DPD are representatives from each region, not a political party representative. The Constitutional Court in the decision considered double representation. Are you a regional representative or a political party representative? The representation of political parties is the DPR [House] while the DPD ideally should not be part of any political party,” said Mahrus Ali when welcoming the Student Executive Body (BEM) of the Law Faculty of Muhammadiyah University Surakarta in the Constitutional Court’s Delegation Room on Tuesday afternoon (9/10/2018).

Mahrus Ali said that this was the Constitutional Court’s Decision on the judicial review petition of Article 182 letter l of Law No. 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections. In this article, there is the phrase “other profession” in the registration requirements for DPD candidates. The phrase does not explain in detail whether the management of political parties are allowed to register as DPD candidates.

According to the Court, there was legal uncertainty regarding the absence of an explanation of the phrase “other profession that could lead to a conflict of interest with the duties, authorities, or rights as a DPD member in accordance with the laws and regulations” in the article. The Constitutional Court stated in its ruling that there was a possibility that the party management would be affected by the decision. The Constitutional Court stated that the General Elections Commission (KPU) could provide an opportunity for political party officials to resign from the party.

Mahrus Ali also explained four authorities and one obligation of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court’s main authority is to review laws against the Constitution. He said that laws are political products with many interests.

“Laws are not purely legal because they have a lot of interests. Therefore, they must be purified to the Constitutional Court to be harmonized with the Constitution if there is any conflict. This means that the Court is passive. If no one submits [a petition], there will be no [judicial review]. There is no decision without a petition,” he explained regarding “Refining Legislative Products through Constitutional Interpretation.”

Mahrus Ali explained that the 2019 Simultaneous Presidential Election was the result of the Constitutional Court’s decision, not a stipulation of a law. “So, the law was created as a result of the Constitutional Court’s decision,” he added.

Mahrus Ali also explained the Constitutional Court’s authority to decide on authority disputes between state institutions whose authorities were granted by the 1945 Constitution. “If there are any disputing state institutions, the Court can resolve it. For example, between the President and the House of Representatives, there were different opinions regarding Newmont’s shares. It was then decided by the Constitutional Court that the President was authorized to purchase Newmont’s shares, but the House must give permission,” he said.

The Court also has the authority to decide upon the dissolution of political parties and disputes over the results of the general elections and regional head elections (Pilkada). The Court is also obliged to decide upon the opinion of the House if the president and or vice president are suspected of violating the law or committing disgraceful acts.

“Anyone can petition a case at the Constitutional Court. Any Indonesian citizen whose constitutional rights are impaired by the enactment of a law [can]. Foreign citizens do not have the legal standing to file a petition to the Constitutional Court,” he said.

The Constitutional Court justices, he said, must be independent and impartial. This is to create the judiciary that is neutral, free, and not influenced by any party. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---