The preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of the Law on the Legislative Branch, Tuesday (5/6/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The interpretation of the House of Representatives’ (DPR) authority to recall public officials in state institutions is being petitioned once again to the Constitutional Court (MK). This time, Gadjah Mada University constitutional law students Mochamad Adli Wafi and Muhammad Kevin Setio Haryanto filed a material judicial review petition of Article 70 paragraph (3), Article 72 letter d, and Article 185 paragraphs (1) and (2) 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 preliminary hearing for case No. 47/PUU-XXIII/2025 was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah on Tuesday, April 6, 2025.

Adli Wafi said the articles have impaired the Petitioners’ constitutional rights as citizens, as they are prevented from having independent state institutions. They argued that the House has interpreted its oversight function in the recruitment of public officials in state institutions in a way that is unconstitutional, as it goes into recalling those officials.

The Petitioners believe that, in order to implement the mandate of the 1998 Reform, the Constitutional Court must strictly interpret the oversight function to maintain constitutional democracy. It needs to ensure that the function does not allow any state institution to dominate others under the pretext of oversight. They believe the House’s intervention into other state institutions is a clear denial of the hierarchy of state institutions after the amendment to the Constitution and the principle of popular sovereignty. Such intervention directly contradicts the history of the formation of Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which affirms that sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised according to the Constitution, not monopolized by any particular state institution.

“The Petitioners request a restricted interpretation to the Constitutional Court so that the House’s oversight function would not be interpreted to include the authority to recall public officials in state institutions, whose recruitment involves the House,” Adli Wafi explained.

Therefore, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 70 paragraph (3) of Law No. 17 of 2014 conditionally unconstitutional if the phrase “oversight function” is interpreted to include the authority to recall public officials in state institutions, whose recruitment involves the House.

They also request that the Article 72 letter d be declared conditionally unconstitutional if the word “oversight” is interpreted to include the authority to recall public officials in state institutions, whose recruitment involves the House.

They also request that the Court declare Article 185 paragraph (1) conditionally unconstitutional if it is not interpreted that a certain state official’s appointment is final and cannot be rescinded after their appointment into public service. They ask that it be interpreted as “The House shall nominate a candidate to take any office based on laws and regulations through a plenary House meeting that is final and cannot be rescinded after their appointment as an official.”

Constitutional Impairment

Justice Foekh said that the Petitioners must elaborate their potential and actual loss for the petition’s merit to be considered. He also advised them to strengthen their argument on the House and the recruitment of state officials.

“Are there examples in other countries and doctrines or expert opinions on the Petitioners’ argument? After (the Reform), there is checks and balances, [where] the president has the authority to draft laws. Please present other countries with a similar mechanism,” he said.

Meanwhile, Justice Guntur advised them to elaborate the articles in the Constitution to show the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment due to the petitioned norms. “There must be a basis for the argument that the norms being petitioned are against [the Constitution], that there is an issue of constitutionality. If there is no such an issue, the petition would be vague and [niet ontvankelijke verklaard or dismissed due to formal defects],” he explained.

Before adjourning the session, Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by Monday, May 19, 2025. A second hearing to present the revisions to the petition will then be scheduled.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---