The counsels of the central executive board of the Indonesian Party conveying the petition revisions at the judicial review hearing of the MD3 Law No. 17 of 2014 virtually, Monday (9/27/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Monday, September 27, 2021 | 17:55 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another 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 27, 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, Munatsir Mustaman said on behalf of the Petitioner that the petition had been revised following the constitutional justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing, including the legal standing. The Petitioner, he explained, is the Indonesian Party (Partindo), a non-parliamentary party that did not obtain any seat in the House of Representatives (DPR).

He also explained the petition’s background on the need for the addition to the MPR’s authority, i.e. to formulate the state policy guidelines (GBHN). “Because the law does not regulate (the MPR’s authority to formulate the GBHN). So, we request that Article 5 letter d be added so that the MPR is authorized to formulate the state policy outlines on the GBHN,” he said.

Also read: Addition to MPR’s Authority in MD3 Law Challenged

At the preliminary hearing, the chairman and secretary-general of the central executive board (DPP) of the Indonesian Party (Partindo) as the Petitioner said that their constitutional rights had been or would potentially be harmed by the enactment of Article 5 of the MD3 Law. They believe the MPR 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.

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

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

Translation uploaded on 9/27/2021 22:57 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.

---