Principal Petitioner Deddi Fasmadhy Satiadharmanto in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People\'s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council, and Regional Legislative Council, Tuesday (26/3) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court decided to grant the withdrawal of the petition 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) on Tuesday (26/3/2019) in the ruling hearing in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner had argued that Article 249 paragraph (1) letter j of the MD3 Law was not in line with Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which stated that the authority to cancel and review 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 observed 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, to support 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 also implements 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 practice, 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.

On case No. 17/PUU-XVII/2019 petitioned by Deddi Fasmadhy Satiadharmanto, the Court, through Chief Justice Anwar Usman, stated that the Court has held a preliminary hearing on February 26, 2019 to examine the completeness and clarity of the material. In accordance with the provision of Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law, the panel of justices had provided advice to the Petitioner to revise the petition. On March 11, 2019 the Court had received a letter from the Petitioner to withdraw the judicial review petition of the MD3 Law. The preliminary hearing on March 11, 2019 was to examine the revision of the Petitioner\'\'s petition and at the same time confirm the letter of revocation of the petition. However, the Petitioner was not present even though he had been summoned legally.

After considering the panel report in the Justices Deliberation Meeting on March 12, 2019, the request for petition withdrawal was deemed legitimate. “Based on all considerations to the a quo petition, the Court declared, granted the request for petition withdrawal by the Petitioner,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman as chairman of the hearing before the eight other constitutional justices. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)