Muhamad Zainul Arifin and legal counsels at the preliminary hearing of the Law on the Parliament, Tuesday (11/12/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — House of Representatives (DPR) members can seek reelection infinitely. An incumbent can seek reelection and hold office as a House member for as long as they live, entrepreneur Muhamad Zainul Arifin revealed in petition No. 157/PUU-XXII/2024 on the material judicial review 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), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD), also known as the MD3 Law.

He once ran in the House election for the electoral district (dapil) of DKI Jakarta II with endorsement from the United Development Party (PPP).

This preliminary hearing took place on Tuesday, November 12, 2024 in a panel courtroom. Before Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat and members of the panel, legal counsel Prabowo Febriyanto argued that the articles challenged only regulate that House members may hold office for a period of five years, which ends when new members take their oath of office.

“The provision obviously has legal uncertainty as it does not concern House members holding the same office for the next term. As such, the term becomes infinite, where a House member can take office until their dying day,” Prabowo said.

The provision in these articles, he argued, has clearly led to actual loss to the Petitioner as a citizen who runs in the legislative election as it shows legal uncertainty contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution on the limit of terms for House members seeking reelection.

In addition, those articles have at least two consequences for the democratic, sovereign government system. First, long-lasting members hold office, leading to minimal regeneration. Second, new candidates such as the Petitioner have little chance of getting elected.

“Due to the enforcement of the a quo article, there is no guarantee of the right to legal certainty on the limit of the terms of office of House members as well as the lack of equal opportunity in government. The terms of office of House members are infinite and there is no regeneration in the legislative body,” Prabowo stressed.

The Petitioner emphasized that the provision in those articles have led to the loss of the Petitioner’s constitutional right to legal uncertainty as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and the right to equal opportunity in government as guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, given that the norms do not regulate the limit of the terms of office of House members.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 76 paragraph (4), Article 252 paragraph (5), Article 318 paragraph (4), and Article 367 paragraph (4) of Law No. 17 of 2014 unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “and may be reelected in the same office for only one term of office.”

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to simplify his explanation of the Court’s authority and to detail his argument on the touchstones.

The panel gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by Monday, November 25, 2024.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : N. Rosi.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha M.
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.

---