---

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

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary examination hearing of the formal review of Law Number 13 of 2019 on the Third Amendment to Law Number 17 of 2014 on the People\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) or the MD3 Law on Monday (11/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 66/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by three advocates: Sidik (Petitioner I), Rivaldi (Petitioner II), and Edwin Edison (Petitioner III). The Petitioners questioned the change in Article 15 of the MD3 Law on the leadership of the MPR and the removal of Article 427 of the MD3 Law on the validity of Law Number 17 of 2014.

In the session chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, Sidik (Petitioner I) said that his constitutional damage is focused on the mandate from the Petitioners/individual citizens to the Parliament to carry out their duties fairly, honestly, and responsible for the interests of the people. "The granting of the mandate [does not mean] the people\'s sovereignty is transferred to the Indonesian Parliament, [but] the sovereignty remains in the hands of the people," he said. The constitutional loss in the formal review is proven if the Petitioners feel that the House (DPR) has not carried out fiduciary duties that mandated by the people fairly, honestly, and responsibly, even though the Petitioners used their right to vote to elect members of the House in the general elections.

Sidik believes that the 1945 Constitution does not regulate mandatory approval of the House and the President. If the formulation of laws reviewed formally against the 1945 Constitution, they would not be unconstitutional since they are always approved by both institutions before being promulgated.

He added that the formulation of the Third Amendment to the MD3 Law violated the procedure as regulated in the House code of conduct as it was not included in the 2015-2019 National Legislative Program (Prolegnas) or the 2019 Prolegnas priority list. If the Bill of the Third Amendment to the MD3 Law had been submitted outside of the Prolegnas, it could only have been proposed by the House and the President.

Sidik considered the change in Article 15 of the MD3 Law not driven by the need to fill a legal vacuum or a critical situation. On the contrary, the Petitioners believe they tend to accommodate the political interests of political parties, giving each political party faction one leading position in the MPR, be it Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson. In their petition, the Petitioners also argued that Law Number 13 of 2019 is not supported by sociologically and philosophically qualified academic texts. They concluded that the Third Amendment to the MD3 Law does not meet the principles of the formation of legislation or, in other words, that it followed a flawed procedure.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare Law Number 13 of 2019 not meeting the provisions of the formation of a law based on the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that the Petitioners need to describe their constitutional rights that were harmed by the enactment of the law and their legal standing. "Try to describe the constitutional rights that were impaired by the law being reviewed. Then, although the Petitioners outlined the loss, if the description [of this petition] is not strong, we will not examine the subject of the petition," she said. She also suggested that the Petitioners elaborate on their argument.

Constitutional Justice Manahan M .P. Sitompul. Manahan similarly urged that the Petitioners explain about the constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the law. "The Petitioners should clarify the constitutional loss due to the law being reviewed," he said. Chief Justice Anwar Usman said that in general the petition had met the requirements, but there are things for the justices to observe. The description of the reasons, including the substance of the judicial review, is said to be the substance with regard to the composition of the leadership of the MPR but the title of the elaboration is formal review. "Is the review purely formal or at the same time formal and material?" asked Justice Anwar.

The Petitioners were given 14 working days by the justices to revise the petition. The revised petition is to be submitted by November 25, 2019 at 13:30 WIB. (Utami/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---