Petitioner Ignatius Supriyadi reading out the subject of his petition in the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), Tuesday (14/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—There is no term limit for members of the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), as well as the Provincial and Regency/City Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), said advocate Ignatius Supriyadi when reading out the subject of his petition in the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) (MD3 Law) at the Constitutional Court (MK).

In petition No. 1/PUU-XVIII/2020, Ignatius stated argues that Article 76 paragraph (4), Article 252 paragraph (5), Article 318 paragraph (4), and Article 367 paragraph (4) contradict Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. He believes that the articles stipulate that the term of office of parliamentary members is five years, ended by the swear-in of new members. In the panel hearing on Tuesday (14/1/2020) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, he said that the provision implies that members cannot be re-appointed. In other words, once the members’ term of office ends, they are replaced by new members. As a result, parliamentary members can only be elected once.

“However, such notion does not apply in practice. In fact, it is interpreted that there is no limit to the members’ term of office. It also means that members can occupy the office forever as long as they are elected in the election process,” Ignatius said before the panel of justices consisting of Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman (chair) and Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Arief Hidayat.

Therefore, the phrase “and at the end when new members of Regency/City DPRD take oaths” is multi-interpretive and even leans toward the interpretation “there is no limit of term of office of members of DPR, DPD, and Provincial and Regency/City DPRD.” Ignatius believes that the multi-interpretive provision does not offer fair guarantee and legal certainty. He believes that the term of office of parliamentary members should only be five years and automatically ends when new members are inaugurated, and former members cannot be re-elected. This will give citizens, including the Petitioner, the opportunity to be elected as parliamentary members.

Through the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare the article in the norm unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as “and can be re-elected in the same office, only for one term.”

Argument for Constitutionality

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Petitioner needs to clarify the argument so that it can strengthen his legal standing, by elaborating the relation between the articles in question and previous Constitutional Court decisions. Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked that the Petitioner compare the term of office of parliamentary members in democratic governments. “Please conduct a comparative study [with], for example, [the United States of] America, whose parliamentary members’ term of office is not limited. What could be the pros and cons. Find countries that have such a limitation, because it will correlate with what you intend from this petition for Indonesia, that is, limitation of term of office,” he explained.

Before concluding the session, Chief Justice Anwar Usman reminded the Petitioner to revise the petition and submit it by Monday, January 27, 2020 at 09:30 WIB to the Registrar\\'s Office. (Sri Pujianti/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti