---

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, Wednesday (19/8) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the fourth 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 Wednesday, August 19, 2020.

The hearing of case No. 1/PUU-XVIII/2020 was supposed to hear the statements of the House (DPR) and the Government. However, Petitioner Ignatius Supriyadihad sent a letter of petition withdrawal. “We sent a letter of petition withdrawal on August 13, 2020,” he said in the Plenary Courtroom in person. This concludes the case on Article 76 paragraph (4), Article 252 paragraph (5), Article 318 paragraph (4), and Article 367 paragraph (4) of the MD3 Law. “Therefore, this case is declared complete and expecting a decree of the Court,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

Also read:

Term of Office of Parliamentary Members Challenged

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

Needing Time, Govt Requests Delay of Hearing of MD3 Law

In the petition, the Petitioner stated that there is no limit to the term of office of members of DPR, DPD, and Provincial and Regency/City DPRD. He believed 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.” The Petitioner believed that the multi-interpretive provision doesn’t offer fair guarantee and legal certainty. He believed 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 him, the opportunity to be elected as parliamentary members. (*)

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Andhini S. F.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/24/2020 14:35 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---