Petitioner Ignatius Supriyadi after the judicial review hearing of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional Legislative Council, Monday (6/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing 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) on Monday (6/7/2020). The third hearing of case No. 1/PUU-XVIII/2020 was supposed to hear the statements of the House (DPR) and the Government. However, the House was absent while the Petitioner through the president’s legal counsel from Law and Human Rights Ministry Purwoko requested that the hearing be delayed.

"We still need to coordinate on the President\'s statement and [we] have also submitted a letter to the Constitutional Court on July 2, 2020 [regarding the request for delay]," Purwoko said.

The Petitioner, advocate Ignatius Supriyadi, argued 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 there is no limit to the term of office of members of DPR, DPD, and Provincial and Regency/City DPRD. He believes that the a quo articles stipulate that the term of office of parliamentary members is five years, ended by the swear-in of new members. 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.

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. (Sri Pujianti/ASF/LA)

Also read:

Term of Office of Parliamentary Members Challenged

Advocate Adds Argument to Limiting MP\'s Term of Office

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on (7/7/2020)