The Petitioner’s legal counsels conveying the revisions to the judicial review petition of the Law on the Parliament, Monday (11/25/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for case 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 on Monday, November 25, 2024. The session had been scheduled to examine revisions to petition filed by entrepreneur Muhamad Zainul Arifin.

Legal counsel Abdul Hakim conveyed the revisions to the petition. Firstly, on page 19 it is explained that the different nature of the executive and legislative offices does not necessarily eliminate the potential for abuse of power. Secondly, on page 22 it is explained that the Court has decided case No. 108/PUU-X/2012 relating to the norms in question.

“In the a quo decision, the Court has emphasized legislative restrictions due to the difference in the nature of the [legislative and] executive offices. Restrictions on presidential reelection is due to the nature of the presidential office as a single position. Therefore, it must be limited to avoid arbitrariness. It is different with the DPR (House) and DPRD (Regional Legislative Council), who exercise their authority collectively, so the opportunity for arbitrariness by them is little,” Abdul said.

Also read: Petitioner Wishes House Members’ Terms of Office Limited

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, November 12, legal counsel Prabowo Febriyanto argued that House of Representatives (DPR) members can seek reelection infinitely. Thus, an incumbent can seek reelection and hold office as a House member for as long as they live. He stated that Article 76 paragraph (4), Article 252 paragraph (5), Article 318 paragraph (4), and Article 367 paragraph (4) of the MD3 Law 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 Petitioner had once run in the House election for the electoral district (dapil) of DKI Jakarta II with endorsement from the United Development Party (PPP). He argued that the articles being petitioned shows contradiction to legal certainty guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

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.

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.” 

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.

---