Petitioner Indri Hafsari at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of the Law on the Legislative Branch on Thursday (1/2/2025). Photo by MKRI.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Court rejected the 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, on Thursday, January 2, 2025.

The Case No. 164/PUU-XXII/2024 concerns the unlimited term of office of legislative members. The petition was filed by Bandung City DPRD Candidate for 2024 Indri Hafsari and political party member Amul Hikmah (Petitioners I and II).

“[The Court] adjudicated; rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the ruling hearing on Thursday, January 2, 2025.

In its legal considerations, the Court noted the similarity with a previously decided case No. 157/PUU-XXII/2024, ruled earlier on the day. The Court considered that the substance challenged by the Petitioners are the same.

“Despite different basis and constitutional reasons, the essence of the petitums in both cases is the same, where they questioned the terms of office of legislative members, in which the Petitioners requested the Court to limit,” said Justice Enny Nurbaningsih delivering the Court’s legal opinion.

The Court did not have strong reasons to shift from its previous stance. It also explained that the legal considerations in Decision No. 157/PUU-XXII/2024 apply mutatis mutandis as legal considerations in response to the arguments of the a quo petition. As such, the terms of office of legislative members remain the same with no restrictions.

In the petitum, the Petitioners 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 as long as it is 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.”

Also read:

Lack of Restriction on Legislative Members’ Terms in MD3 Law Questioned

Petition on Legislative Members’ Terms in MD3 Law Revised

In the revised petition, the Petitioners requested the Court to reinterpret Article 76 paragraph (4) to read “and can be reelected into the same office for one more term.” They argued there was no legal certainty to the lack of limitation on the terms of office of legislative members and that it had caused constitutional harm to them and other citizens.

The Petitioners’ legal counsel also stated this petition aimed to ensure all powers are equal, including that of the executive, to prevent absolute power.

“Indonesia could lead other countries by example by limiting the terms of office of its legislative members and other public offices,” said legal counsel Himas Muhamad Imammullah El Hakim at the petition revision hearing on Monday, December 16, 2024.

Author         : Ashri Fadilla
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Tiara Agustina
Translator     : Ryan Alfian/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.

---