The Court conduct an online preliminary hearing on the judicial review of Law on the MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD (MD3 Law), (4/30/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Chindy Trivendi Junior (Petitioner I), Halim Rahmansah (Petitioner II), Insan Kamil (Petitioner III), Muhammad Arya Ansar (Petitioner IV), and Wahyu Dwi Kanang (Petitioner V) filed for judicial review of Article 239 paragraph (2) letter d of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Regional Representatives Council, and the Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law) with the Constitutional Court. The preliminary hearing of case No. 41/PUU-XXIII/2025 took place on Wednesday (4/30/2025) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, presided over by Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani along with Justices Anwar Usman and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

The article being challenged reads, “Members of the DPR shall be honorably discharged between terms, as referred to in paragraph (1) letter c, if ... d. proposed by their political party by the prevailing laws and regulations.”

Chindy explained that the Petitioners, as voters, have the right to choose their DPR members as stated in Article 19 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In an open-list proportional system, voters choose their representatives directly, not the political party. Therefore, the representatives elected by the voters must be accountable to them for a five-year term.

However, Chindy said that this article allows political parties to recall elected representatives, which weakens the representative system built through elections. It interferes with the independence of DPR members in representing the people in their electoral districts.

“This harms the Petitioners’ constitutional right to equal treatment by the government as stated in Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Not all of the voters’ aspirations will necessarily match the political party’s interests. As a result, the votes they cast can lose meaning if the representative they chose is recalled by their party,” she said during the online hearing.

The Petitioners are asking the Court to declare that Article 239 paragraph (2) letter d of the MD3 Law has no binding legal force.

Need for Clear Legal Argument

Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh reminded the Petitioners to provide a clear explanation in their petition. “If you don’t agree with the recall being in the hands of political parties and want it to be decided by the people instead, then you must explain why this contradicts the 1945 Constitution. You also need to propose a solution if this rule is removed, so there’s no legal gap,” he said.

Justice Arsul Sani also advised the Petitioners to refer to Constitutional Court Decision No. 38/PUU-VIII/2010, which granted standing to a petitioner from a political party. “Although the petition is already well-written, you still need to strengthen your argument on the constitutional loss you suffered. Also, when comparing with countries that don’t have a recall system, be sure to consider who their election participants are and how their electoral system works, as it may be different from ours,” he added.

Before closing the session, Justice Arsul said the Petitioners were given 14 days to revise their petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court no later than Wednesday, May 14, 2025. The next hearing will hear the main points of the revised petition.

Read more: Petition of Case No. 41/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Raisa Ayuditha
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

Disclaimer: The original version of this news article is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version shall prevail.

---