The Constitutional Court resumes the judicial review hearing of the MD3 Law, Wednesday (01/10) to examine the revised petition. Photo by MKRI/IlhamWM.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The petitioners in Case No. 159/PUU-XXIII/2025 submitted revisions for their judicial review of Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD (MD3 Law) on Wednesday (1/10/2025). The petitioners, Dian Prahara Batubara and Moch. Jian Niam Al Kamil are students from the Constitutional Law Program at the Faculty of Sharia and Law, Sunan Ampel State Islamic University Surabaya. They added an explanation of their legal standing to the petition.

“We added explanations for several details the Panel previously regarded as insufficient, then reorganized the data included in the reasoning section to put it under legal standing,” said Jian Niam, who attended the hearing online.

Additionally, the petitioners introduced around five new points of narrative to their statement of reasons (posita). The revised petition also includes previous Constitutional Court decisions relevant to the articles challenged.

In their petitum, the petitioners requested the Court declare Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of the MD3 Law, as most recently amended by Law No. 13 of 2019, to be contrary to Article 1 paragraph (2) and Article 28E Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and to have no binding legal force unless interpreted as “Electoral District Opinion,” as a concrete form of the people’s mandate to DPR members in a representative democracy.

Also read:

Factions in MD3 Law Challenged

The Petitioners believed that the use of “factions” in the article does not reflect the House of Representatives as the people's representative directly. The Petitioners explained that it is a collective understanding in a constitutional democracy that power should originate from the people and be exercised for the people's benefit, as guaranteed under Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

However, Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of the MD3 Law, which stipulates that “the DPR’s views in the deliberation of a draft law at the first level shall be presented through factions,” effectively shifts legislative authority from the people’s elected representatives to political parties, through their factions.

The Petitioners argued that the application of Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of the MD3 Law, by introducing the term “faction,” impedes regional development since the resulting policies and regulations are not always aligned with the actual needs of the regions. This would not occur if the opinions expressed in the regulatory process, which the DPR is authorized to shape, were carried out through a system based on electoral districts.

By allowing faction-based opinions in Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of the MD3 Law, the Petitioners claimed, it may create potential constitutional harm, as the negative consequence of faction-based decision-making is the obscuring of party and member positions, making them oblivious to constituents. The moral and political accountability of DPR members—whose authority is delegated by voters in their electoral districts—cannot be guaranteed, since the decisions they make become the collective expression of their party’s faction rather than the authentic representation of their constituents.

Faction-based views also risk producing legislation that fails to address local issues, as representatives from a given region should ideally understand and advocate for their local interests. The Petitioners propose replacing “faction-based opinion” with educating voters to make rational choices in future elections, based on candidates' capacities and understandings of their electoral districts.

The case was heard by a Panel of Justices presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, accompanied by Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Ridwan Mansyur. Before adjourning, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated that the Panel would report the proceeding to the Justices' Deliberation Meeting to decide on the continuation of the case.

Author: Mimi Kartika

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Fauzan.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---