Legal counsel Makhfud (center) at the ruling hearing on the provision on number of members of Regional Representatives Council, Tuesday (8/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire material judicial review petition of 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, as well as Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections. The ruling hearing for Decision No. 48/PUU-XXII/2024 took place in the plenary courtroom on Tuesday, August 20, 2024.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra delivered the Court’s legal opinion on the petition filed by Ahmad Kanedi and seven other individuals. The Petitioners believed Article 252 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17 of 2014 had led to institutional issues for the DPD due to the limited number of members, i.e. four people. Such a restriction is the legislatures’ prerogative. However, the DPD should make an effort to challenge it by amending Law No. 17 of 2014.

“The Court believes constitutional political decision-making in the People’s Consultative Assembly shold first use deliberation and consensus in line with the fourth precept of Pancasila. This mechanism is expected to create an atmosphere of kinship and a spirit of mutual cooperation to ensure that decisions taken are fair and acceptable to all parties as an effort to unite all elements of the nation’s strength,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi said.

He added that Article 196 of Law No. 7 of 2017 should be read as a follow-up on the number of DPD members stipulated in Article 252 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17 of 2014. Because Article 252 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17 of 2014 is unconstitutional and not against Article 22C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 196 of Law No. 7 of 2017 should be declared not unconstitutional. Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition was legally groundless in its entirety.

Also read:

Legislative Candidate Challenges Provision Limiting DPD Members to Four Per Province

Legislative Candidate Affirms Reason to Challenge Provision Limiting Number DPD Members

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, July 4, the Petitioners conveyed their petition of Article 252 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17 of 2014 and Article 196 of Law No. 7 of 2017. They compared the seat allocation of DPR members and its regulation in electoral districts following Articles 186 and 187 paragraph (2) of Law No. 7 of 2017 as well as the number of members and seat allocation for DPD in each province as regulated in the two laws petitioned for review. They believed both articles had violated the sense of proportionality and justice for them.

The Petitioners, who placed fifth in their constituencies, would certainly not be elected as DPD members from the provinces as mentioned above in the 2024 election. The disproportionality is that the number of DPR members, which is 575, is not proportional to the number of DPD seats in each province, which is only 152. Meanwhile, according to Article 22C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, a seat requires no more than one-third and no more than one-third does not mean far below one-third. In other words, any number far below one-third is disproportionate and should be considered unconstitutional. They believe the injustice lies in the determination of the number of DPR seats, where the legislatures determined at least three seats and at most ten seats.

The Petitioners were DPD candidates for the 2024-2029 who placed fifth in their constituencies: Bengkulu, Gorontalo, Aceh, West Sulawesi, East Kalimantan, DKI Jakarta, North Sulawesi, and Riau Province. At fifth place, they will not be named DPD members-elect due to the implementation of the articles being questioned. They also believe there is disproportionate number of DPD and DPR members, with the articles in question being one of the reasons. Therefore, they request that the Court declare Article 252 paragraph (1) of Law No. 17 of 2014 conditionally unconstitutional if not interpreted as “Members of the DPD of each province shall be set at 5 (five) people,” and declare Article 196 of Law No. 7 of 2017 conditionally unconstitutional if not interpreted as “Each province shall receive 5 (five) available seats in an election of members of the DPD.”

Author            : Sri Pujianti
Editor             : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                 : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator       : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---