Panel judicial review hearing of the MD3 Law, Monday (11/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the second hearing of Law No. 2 of 2018 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (11/03/2019).

The case No. 17/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Deddi Fasmadhy Satiadharmanto. He argued that Article 249 paragraph (1) letter j of the MD3 Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner was absent. Based on the letter sent to the Court dated March 11, 2019, the Petitioner had withdrawn the petition. “Because the [Petitioner] in question is absent, this letter will be regarded the official withdrawal of the petition and will be reported to the Justices Deliberation Meeting,” said Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna who presided over the session, in the presence of Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Saldi Isra.

In the previous session, the Petitioner said that the article is not in line with Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which states that the authority to cancel and review regional regulations (Perda) should be in the hands of the Supreme Court. To carry out regional government affairs as referred to in the government regulation, the Petitioner considers that the regional government requires a set of legislation whose authority is formed by the regional head with the approval of the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD).

According to the Petitioner, in supporting the establishment of an effective legal system and in order to improve good governance, the central and regional governments formed Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formulation of Regulatory Legislation, which is also the implementation of Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution. The purpose of this law is so that all institutions authorized to form legislation have specific standard guidelines that are and standardized in processes, methods, and techniques for drafting legislation in a planned, integrated, and systematic manner. However, in fact, the MD3 Law only provides certain restrictions on employment within District/Municipal Legislative Council (DPRD) and Regional Governments without considering other perspectives. Therefore, through the petitum the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the a quo article not legally binding with all its legal consequences. (Sri Pujianti/NRA/Yuniar Widiastuti)