Ruling hearing of the institutional dispute (SKLN), Tuesday (30/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court denied authority to adjudicate the institutional dispute (SKLN) petitioned by Gusti Kanjeng Ratu Hemas and Farouk Muhammad (Petitioners I), Deputy Speakers of the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) 2014–2019 Period, as well as Nurmawati Dewi Bantilan (Petitioner I), DPD member of 2014–2019 Period. The ruling was passed in Decision No. 1/SKLN-XVII/2019 read out on Tuesday (30/4/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman read that the Petitioners are not state institutions, but DPD leaders who exercised the authority of the DPD for the 2014–2019 Period. The Respondent (Chairperson of the Republic of Indonesia DPD for the April 2017–September 2019 period) is also not a state institution, but a DPD leader who exercises the authority of the DPD for the 2014–2019 Period. In addition, the object in dispute is also not something related to the authority of the DPD given by the 1945 Constitution, which was taken over by other state institutions. Rather, it is an internal dispute regarding the dismissal of Petitioners I and Petitioner II as Deputy Speakers of the DPD, which cannot be separated from the personal dimension between the conflicting parties.

According to the Court in the legal considerations, Justice Anwar added, the Petitioners\' petition was not an authority dispute of state institutions, whose authority was granted by the Constitution as referred to in Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 61 of the Constitutional Court Law, and the Constitutional Court Number 04/SKLN-IV/2006. Based on all these considerations, with respect to the request, in accordance with Article 48A paragraph (1) letter 7 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court is not authorized to hear the petition of the a quo Petitioners so that in accordance with Article 48 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court issued a Decision, "Establishing, declaring that the Constitutional Court is not authorized to hear the Petitioners\' petition," Justice Anwar said in the presence of the eight other constitutional justices. 

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 had requested that the Court declare the Petitioners legitimate leaders of DPD RI for 2014-2019. In addition, the Petitioners had 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)