The Petitioners and legal counsels at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Law on the Legislative Branch for case No. 164/PUU-XXII/2024, Tuesday (12/3/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Bandung City DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) member candidate for 2024 Indri Hafsari and political party member Amul Hikmah have filed a material judicial review petition 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. The Petitioners of case No. 164/PUU-XXII/2024 alleged that those articles are unconstitutional.

“The point is that they have been constitutionally disadvantaged by the absence of term limits for members of the DPR, Provincial DPRD, and Regency/City DPRD,” said legal counsel El Hakim at the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, December 3, 2024.

The Petitioners believe the articles do not emphasize restriction on the terms of office of members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD, as well as the that of the president and vice president, governors and vice governors, regents and vice regents, and mayors and vice mayors. This means they have no legal certainty regarding restriction on the terms of office of members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD. The elucidation to the article allows those members to hold the same office indefinitely.

Indri Hafsari is a candidate from the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) who contested the election of Bandung City DPRD members in 2024. She argued that the reason why she had lost was because she was faced with incumbents who had served two terms or 10 years. They, she claimed, had privileges and were more dominant than the other candidates, especially those who had never been elected.

Meanwhile, as an executive of DPD II of the Golongan Karya Party (Golkar) in Maros Regency, Amul Hikmah felt that the regeneration of DPRD members in Maros Regency was hindered by the dominance of incumbents who had served more than two terms in the same electoral district. He argued that the enforcement of the articles under review has harmed their constitutional right to be in government, including becoming DPRD members.

The Petitioners believe that members of the DPR, DPD, and DPRD are part of the Indonesian Government, so there needs to be clarity and legal certainty regarding their term limit as well as restriction on the terms of office of the president and vice president, governors and vice governors, regents and vice regents, and mayors and vice mayors as a manifestation of justice and equality of the constitutional rights of every citizen. The stated that limiting state power is very important, one of the characteristics of the rule of law, and also for the sake of checks and balances. This restriction helps create leadership regeneration and prevent abuse of power.

In their petitums, the Petitioners request 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: “The term of office of members of the DPR, DPD, Provincial DPRD, and City/Regency DPRD shall be 5 (five) years for 1 (one) term and they may only serve a maximum of 2 (two) terms at the same level.”

Justices’ Advice

The case was heard by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Ridwan Mansyur. Justice Enny said the Constitution regulates the position of legislative members in contrast to that of regional heads and president/vice president. For that reason, she advised the Petitioners to scrutinize their argument on restriction of terms of office of legislative members against the provisions of the Constitution.

“The Constitution clearly states that the president has a five-year term and can be reelected for one more term. The [term] of regional heads is not determined in Article 18 but in the Law those of executive offices are determined, in this case two terms for the president. Meanwhile, Article 22E of the Constitution determines that the term is only five years and the limit is not mentioned,” she explained.

Justice Enny said the Petitioners can make a comparison with the terms of members of parliament in other countries and must outline arguments to support the restriction on these terms.

Before concluding the session, Justice Arief announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition, whose softcopy or hardcopy must be received by the Court by Monday, December 16 during work hours.

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Tiara Agustina
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.

---