Petitioners for judicial review of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the People's Consultative Assembly, the House of Representatives, the Regional Representative Council and the Regional Legislative Council (MD3 Law) delivering the main points of their petition online, on Tuesday (11/4/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.
JAKARTA (MKRI) – Four students have filed a petition for a material judicial review of Article 239 paragraph (1) letter c of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the MPR, DPR, and DPRD (MD3 Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI) to the Constitutional Court (MK). According to the Petitioners, the article being challenged does not provide space for voters or constituents to provide substantial oversight and control to be able to propose the dismissal of DPR members.
"It is very difficult to understand that the process of selecting members of the DPR is carried out by adhering to the principle of popular sovereignty, but to determine whether the DPR members are dismissed or not, it blatantly ignores this principle," said Muhammad Adnan as Petitioner IV in the preliminary examination hearing for Case No. 199/PUU-XXIII/2025 with Ikhsan Fatkhul Azis (Petitioner I), Rizki Maulana Syafei (Petitioner II), and Faisal Nasirul Haq (Petitioner III) online on Tuesday, November 4, 2025.
Adnan stated that 41 members of the House of Representatives (DPR) between 2015 and 2024 have been dismissed or placed on interim suspension (PAW), as per data published on https://publikasipaw.kpu.go.id/. The Petitioners concluded that the reasons for the dismissals were still based on the individual interests of party members moving to other parties or parties dismissing their members for not aligning with their interests.
Article 239 paragraph (1) letter c MD3 states that (1) DPR members are dismissed from their positions due to: a. death; b. resignation; or c. dismissal. Meanwhile, the next paragraph stipulates that DPR members are dismissed from their positions if they are unable to carry out their duties continuously or are permanently prevented from serving as DPR members for three consecutive months without any explanation; violate the oath/promise of office and the DPR code of ethics; are found guilty based on a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force for committing a crime that is punishable by imprisonment of five years or more, are proposed by their political party in accordance with the provisions of statutory regulations; no longer meet the requirements as a candidate for DPR member in accordance with the provisions of statutory regulations regarding the general election of DPR, DPD, and DPRD members; violate the prohibition provisions as regulated in this Law; are dismissed as members of a political party in accordance with the provisions of statutory regulations; or become members of another political party.
By the enactment of the provisions in the article being tested, according to the Petitioners, there has been a clear exclusion of political parties from dismissing DPR members, where the current practice is often that political parties dismiss DPR members without clear reasons without considering the principle of people's sovereignty, or vice versa when there are DPR members who should be dismissed at the request of the people because they no longer receive legitimacy from the people, are instead retained by political parties. The absence of a mechanism for dismissal by constituents in the provisions of the article being challenged has placed the role of the Petitioners as voters in the general election (election) only as a formal procedure, because elected DPR members are determined based on the most votes in the election mechanism, while for their dismissal no longer involves the people.
The Petitioners cannot ensure that their representatives in the DPR will truly fight for the people's welfare and fulfill their pre-election campaign promises because they no longer have any bargaining power after the election. The practices arising from the provisions of the challenged article have disregarded the principle of popular sovereignty guaranteed by Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
By the provisions of the challenged article in effect, the Petitioners claim that their constitutional rights to actively participate and receive equal treatment in the running of government, as guaranteed by Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution; to advance themselves in collectively fighting for their rights to build their society, nation, and state, as guaranteed by Article 28C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution; and to receive recognition, guarantees, protection, and fair legal certainty, as well as equal treatment before the law, as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, cannot be realized. These losses to the Petitioners' constitutional rights are specific and actual, or at least potential.
In addition, in line with the implementation of the recall authority held by political parties, there have been clear practices that are contrary to the provisions of the MD3 Law and the will of the people as happened to Ahmad Sahroni and Nafa Indria Urbach from the National Democratic Party (Nasdem), Surya Utama or Uya Kuya and Eko Hendro Purnomo or Eko Patrio from the National Mandate Party (PAN), and Adies Kadir from the Functional Groups Party (Golkar), who based on statements from each party concerned have been temporarily dismissed or deactivated after pressure from the public. According to the Petitioners, instead of carrying out dismissals and replacements in accordance with the provisions of the MD3 Law as demanded by the public, the parties have instead carried out practices that are not regulated in the MD3 Law and have instead caused confusion among the public.
In their petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare that Article 239 paragraph (1) letter c of Law No. 17 of 2014 on MD3 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have conditional binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted to mean that DPR members can be dismissed by constituents in their electoral district.
Justice's Advice
This case was heard by a Panel of Justices chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah. Justice Guntur questioned the actual article/paragraph being challenged by the Petitioners: whether it was Article 239 paragraph (1) letter c of the MD3 Law, concerning the provisions for DPR members resigning from their positions due to dismissal, or Article 239 paragraph (2) of the MDR Law, concerning the subsequent provisions governing the manner in which DPR members can be dismissed.
"Actually, what you want to challenge is the dismissal, or what you want to challenge is the method you requested through the constituents in the electoral district," said Justice Guntur.
This will undoubtedly impact the petitum submitted by the Petitioners. Furthermore, according to Justice Guntur, the Petitioners should explain how their arguments regarding the constituents' recall can be implemented in Indonesia.
Before closing the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Petitioners have 14 days to revise their petition. Both soft and hard copies of the petition must be received by the Court no later than Wednesday, November 17, 2025, at 12.00 PM. (*)
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini Sayu Fauzia
Translator : Donny Yuniarto
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.
Tuesday, November 04, 2025 | 15:42 WIB 376