---

Petitioner Ignatius Supriyadi at the ruling hearing of the judicial review 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, Thursday (27/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the ruling hearing of 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) on Wednesday, August 19, 2020. Chief Justice Anwar Usman delivered the Court’s decision to grant the withdrawal of the petition No. 1/PUU-XVIII/2020 by advocate Ignatius Supriyadi, who had sent a withdrawal request on August 13, 2020.

“The Constitutional Court had scheduled a plenary hearing to hear the statements of the DPR [House] and the Government on August 19, 2020. However, since the Petitioner’s petition had been withdrawn before the hearing, the hearing only confirmed the withdrawal request,” he said. Justice Anwar added that pursuant to Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, the Petitioner may withdraw their petition before or during the examination by the Constitutional Court. Meanwhile, pursuant to Article 35 paragraph (1), the petition may not be filed again.

"[The Court] declares, grants the withdrawal of the Petitioner’s petition. The petition No. 1/PUU-XVIII/2020 on the judicial review petition of Article 76 paragraph (4), Article 252 paragraph (5), Article 318 paragraph (4), and Article 367 paragraph (4) 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) (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 182 of 2014, Supplement to the State Gazette No. 5568) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia is declared withdrawn. The Petitioner may not re-file the a quo petition. [The Court] orders the Registrar of the Constitutional Court to record the withdrawal of the Petitioner’s petition in the constitutional case registration book and to return the copies of the petition to the Petitioner,” said Justice Anwar reading out the ruling.

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

Petitioners of MD3 Law Withdraws Petition

The Petitioner believed that the phrase “and ends when new members of DPR, DPD, Provincial DPR or Regency/City DPRD take oaths” is multi-interpretive. He argued that the phrase “new members” should have been interpreted as “new people” not “new period.” However, the believed the phrase was interpreted not to limit of term of office, but to justify infinite re-elections.

The ambiguous interpretation means that Article 76 paragraph (4), Article 252 paragraph (5), Article 318 paragraph (4), and Article 367 paragraph (4) of the MD3 Law are in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because it has created legal uncertainty. In addition, the interpretation that the term of office of legislative members is unlimited has led to an institution mired in abuse of authority/power. This hampered the realization of the ideals aspired in a rule of law: justice for all people. Based on these reasons, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare the articles not legally binding and unconstitutional.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Andhini S. F.

Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/27/2020 19:21 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.

---