Justice Arsul Sani reading out the Court’s legal consideration during the Decision Pronouncement Hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council, and Regional Legislative Council, Thursday (16/10). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected in its entirety a petition challenging Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council, and Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law). The petitioners had argued that the term “faction” 9fraksi) in the provision should be interpreted as “the opinion of the electoral district” to reflect the people’s mandate to DPR members in Indonesia’s representative democracy. According to the Court, this argument was without legal basis.

“According to the Court, Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of Law No.17 of 2014 does not conflict with the principle of popular sovereignty or freedom of expression as guaranteed in Article 1paragraph (2) and Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, contrary to the petitioners’ arguments,” stated Justice Arsul Sani while delivering the Court’s legal consideration in Decision No. 159/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Thursday, October 16, 2025) in the Plenary Courtroom.

Justice Arsul explained that if the logic of electoral districts were to be adopted, then all 84 districts would need to be given the opportunity to present “mini opinions” during discussions of draft legislation, reflecting the number of seats filled in the DPR. This would considerably complicate matters, as DPR members from each district do not necessarily belong to the same political party. Such complexity means the petitioners’ proposed interpretation would likely introduce serious complications in the legislative process.

The Court did, within certain limits, acknowledge the petitioners’ concerns that Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of Law No. 17 of 2014 could weaken public participation in lawmaking by hindering the fulfillment of citizens’ constitutional rights in representative democracy. Nevertheless, the Court noted that, normatively, Article 96 of Law No. 13 of 2022 already provides for the public’s right to participate in lawmaking and regulatory development, underlining the Court’s consistent affirmation of the importance of meaningful participation.

If, in practice, a gap still exists between constituents’ aspirations and the lawmaking process, the solution cannot be to reinterpret “faction” in Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a as “electoral district.” Such a reinterpretation would not only disrupt other related provisions governing the DPR’s powers and duties, as set out in Part Nine Paragraph 1 of Law No. 17 of 2017, but would also introduce further complexities into the legislative process.

Also read:

Factions in MD3 Law Challenged

Students Revise Judicial Review on Faction Existence in MD3 Law

The case was filed by two students from the Constitutional Law Program of Syaria and Law Faculty of the Universitas Islam Negeri Sunan Ampel Surabaya, Dian Prahara Batubara and Moch. Jian Niam Al Kamil. The Petitioners believed that the use of “factions” in Article 170 paragraph (4) letter a of the MD3 Law 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.

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.

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.

---