The justice panel listening to the Petitioners’ explanation on the judicial review hearing of the MD3 Law, Monday (9/13/2021). Photo by Humas MK/ Ilham W. M.

---

Monday, September 13, 2021 | 15:57 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the judicial review hearing of the provision on the MPR’s duties in Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), also known as the MD3 Law, on Monday, September 13, 2021. The petition No. 45/PUU-XIX/20 was filed by Ahmad Ridha Sabana and Abdullah Mansuri, chairman and secretary-general of the central executive board (DPP) of the Indonesian Party (Partindo).

At the virtual hearing, counsel Desmihardi said the Petitioners’ constitutional rights had been harmed, or according to logical reasoning will inevitable be harmed, by the enactment of Article 5 of the MD3 Law. The MPR, he said, must have another duty—to draft and determine the state policy outlines (PPHN) that the Government follows for the national development in all fields—ideology, politics, economy, social, culture, defense, and security.

“The potential for loss due to the enactment of Article 5 of Law No. 17 of 2014 [was] due to the lack of blueprint on the national development in all fields—ideology, politics, economy, social, culture, defense, and security,” he said.

Desmihardi said the political aspect of the simultaneous elections had led to uncertain political dynamics—changes to the threshold imposed in legislative elections (parliamentary threshold). This caused uncertainty about the direction of national development policies in all fields, which is in line with the Petitioners’ aspirations and goals.

He also said that national development currently referred to the National Development Planning System (SPPN) as referred to in Law No. 25 of 2004, which generated the National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN) and the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN), whose formation was not representative as it was only formed by the president. The RPJPN does not fully represent the people’s aspirations and sovereignty although it was discussed with the House to ratify.

He believes the Government has used the RPJPN as the foundation to the national development for 20 years, which is made into the 5-year RPJMN, which was not implemented effectively as the RPJPN is within the domain of the executive. Therefore, in order to protect the Petitioners’ rights, the PPHN, which is the MPR’s responsibility, is required.

For this reason, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 5 of the MD3 Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not added with point e, which reads, “to draft and determine the PPHN as the government’s guidelines in implementing the national development.”

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioners to elaborate the touchstones. “Elaborate the touchstones, why Article 5 contradicts Article 22E [of the 1945 Constitution] and why [it] contradicts Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, which are the touchstones in the petition. After they are elaborated, it will be clear whether the Petitioners have suffered loss or not. [Please do so] in order to convince [the Court] of the petition,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioners to strengthen their legal standing. “You explained the legal standing from your [status] as the counsel of the chairman and secretary-general of the Indonesian Party (Partindo), formerly the Garuda Party, who presumed constitutional loss. In explaining legal standing, emphasize more than just because your party was not [involved in] discussing the law then your party has legal standing. The legal standing that the Court refers to is not that simplistic,” he said to two counsels of the Petitioners’.

Before concluding the hearing, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra informed the Petitioners that they had until 14 workdays since the preliminary hearing to revise their petition.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/15/2021 00:26 WIB

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

---