Petitioners’ attorney Kurniawan delivering the petition revision in the institutional dispute (SKLN) hearing, Wednesday (6/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court held the second institutional dispute (SKLN) hearing petitioned by Gusti Kanjeng Ratu Hemas and Farouk Muhammad, Deputy Speakers of the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) 2014–2019 Period, as well as Nurmawati Dewi Bantilan, DPD member of 2014–2019 Period, on Wednesday (6/2/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

In the petition revision hearing of case No. 1/SKLN-XVII/2019, legal counsel Kurniawan conveyed several notes on the revision, including on constitutional courts of other countries that had resolved state institutional disputes, that is, South Korea, Thailand, and Germany. The South Korean Constitutional Court had resolved a dispute between the Head of the National Council, which had allowed institution shutdown. The Constitutional Court decision could also resolve a dispute that had involved dismissal.

“Connected to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, this is interesting because both [constitutional courts] have similarities in the Constitutions. Therefore, the Constitution Court [of the Republic of Indonesia] has an authority to resolve this [institutional] dispute,” he said on the case where Oesman Sapta (DPD Speaker of April 2017–September 2019 Period), Nono Sampono (DPD Deputy Speaker I of April 2017–September 2019 Period), and Darmayanti Lubis (DPD Deputy Speaker II of April 2017–September 2019 Period) are Respondents.

The Petitioners also added in the background of the petition an argument about leaders representing the institution, especially in leading the plenary session, which is regulated in the MD3 Law. The Petitioners explained that the dispute had started from the code of conduct that had cut the term of office of Regional Representatives Council (DPD) from 5 years to 2.5, which the Respondents did not comply with. The Petitioners then took a legal action up to cassation.

“The ruling was that it is not the authority of the TUN (state administrative court). Therefore, this case went to the Constitutional Court because the [state administrative court] had stated that it was not their authority,” said Kurniawan before the session presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, in the presence of Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat dan Saldi Isra.  

The Petitioners had previously explained that the Respondents had harmed their constitutional authority granted by Article 22C paragraph (3); Article 22D paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); Article 23 paragraph (2); Article 23E paragraph (2); and Article 23F paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution being implemented since April 4, 2017.  DPD RI was a state institution consisting of members who had been elected from each province through general elections. Through the electoral process, elected DPD members from each province elected the chairman following their terms of office as stipulated in the Regulation of Regional Representatives Council of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1 of 2014, reinforced by the Supreme Court Decision Number 20P/HUM/2017. Other instruments were formed to support the leadership in running the institution for five years. Meanwhile, the Respondents are the DPD with new leaders with a 2.5-year term, from April 2017 to September 2019, and [they were appointed] on April 4, 2017 as leaders after the issuance of the Decree of the Supreme Court Decision Number 20P/HUM/2017. This is a simple indicator of illegitimate takeover of authority

The Petitioners had also argued that the takeover was related to the inseparability between the leadership and the institution; as long as the leadership had not been legally established, the Indonesian DPD was not able to carry out its constitutional authority. As the leader of a pluralistic institution, the absolute element that must be fulfilled is a legitimate leader. This is because the leader is the only instrument that can lead DPD meetings and conclude the results of the session for decision-making, and submit a performance report in the DPD plenary session in accordance with Article 261 of the MD3 Law. As a result of the appointment of the Respondents, two cloned state institutions exist, resulting in a dispute between the Respondents and the Petitioners on the exercise of authority. 

Based on the arguments in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the Petitioners legitimate leaders of DPD RI for 2014-2019. In addition, the Petitioners requested that the Court restore the rights of the Petitioners as speaker and members as well as their status and dignity. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)