Virtual ruling hearing of the judicial review of the MD3 Law No. 17 of 2014, Wednesday (10/27/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Wednesday, October 27, 2021 | 23:09 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the judicial review petition No. 45/PUU-XIX/2021 on 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, inadmissible. The verdict was read out at a virtual ruling hearing on Wednesday, October 27, 2021.

The Indonesian Party (Partindo), represented by chairman Ahmad Ridha Sabana and secretary-general Abdullah Mansuri, challenged Article 5 letter d of the MD3 Law, which reads, “MPR has a duty to: … d. receive the people’s aspirations in relation to the implementation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.”

Partindo felt harmed by the inconsistent, unsustainable national development due to the absence of the MPR’s duty to prepare and formulate national development directives and strategies, which led to them not being able to realize its foundation and objective to fight for its right to develop the community, nation, and state collectively. The Petitioner believed MPR must have another duty—to draft and determine the PPHN (state policy outlines).

The Court, in the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, asserts that the Petitioner did not explain the relations between their legal standing as a political party and their loss in relation to the execution of MPR’s duties based on Article 5 of the MD3 Law.

The Court believes this was because when filing the a quo petition, the Petitioner did not have a seat in DPR (House of Representatives) nor members in MPR, who executed MPR’s authorities and duties. As such, their loss are not directly related to the article petitioned for review. Even if the Petitioner’s loss did not occur at present, or was potential, they did not elaborate how it is inevitable according to logical reasoning due to Article 5 letter d of the MD3 Law. Not to mention, the Petitioner is a new party that has not registered as a contestant in the 2024 Election.

The Petitioner could not explain actual and specific loss of constitutional rights and/or authorities, said Justice Arief. Instead, the only stated that they were harmed if MPR did not have the duty to draft PPHN. They also did not explain the causal relationship between their perceived loss and the enactment of Article 5 letter d of the MD3 Law.

“The Petitioner only stated that they could not form their bylaw and objective, but did not explain the causal relationship between their perceived loss and the enactment of Article 5 letter d of Law No. 17 of 2014 petitioned for review. They also did not elaborate on the possibility that if [the norm] followed their desire, the loss would not occur, because they are currently a political party that does not have a seat in the House, are not MPR members, and are not exercising duties and authorities as MPR members,” Justice Arief said.

Therefore, he added, although the petition was filed by the party’s chairman and secretary-general who are authorized to represent them and that they weren’t involved in the discussion of the bill, they could not explain their specific, actual, or potential loss as well as causal relationship between the perceived loss and the norm petitioned for review.

“The Petitioner did not have the legal standing to file the a quo petition, thus, the Court did not consider the merit of the case,” Justice Arief stressed. 

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/29/2021 15:46 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.

---