Bernita Matondang, petitioner in the judicial review of the MD3 Law, reaffirms her legal standing during the preliminary hearing to examine revisions to her petition, Wednesday (April 1, 2026). Photo: Public Relations/IlhamWM.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI— The Constitutional Court of Indonesia has resumed hearings on the judicial review of Article 72(g) and Article 234(3)(j) of Law No. 17 of 2014 on the MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD (MD3 Law) on Wednesday (April 1, 2026). Petition No. 78/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Bernita Matondang.

During the hearing on the revised petition, presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Petitioner stated that she had refined her submission. The revisions, among others, clarify her legal standing as a subject of law, rather than as an abstract citizen.

The Petitioner also elaborated the substance of her petition on pages 9 to 11, outlined the normative gap on pages 14 to 15, and detailed the alleged violations of the rights to legal certainty and access to information on pages 16 to 22. “As for causality, the harm suffered is not merely a matter of administrative technicality,” Bernita stated during the hearing.

Previously, Bernita Matondang filed a petition challenging Article 72(g) and Article 234(3)(j) of the MD3 Law. She argued that her constitutional injury stems from the construction of Article 72(g), which contains the phrase “to follow up on public aspirations and complaints” without providing normative parameters regarding the form, stages, or traceability of such follow-up. This is further compounded by Article 234(3)(j), which only regulates the receipt and distribution of aspirations without mandating a transparent and trackable follow-up mechanism.

In her revised petitum, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare the phrase “to follow up on public aspirations and complaints” in Article 72(g) of the MD3 Law unconstitutional and conditionally invalid, unless it is interpreted to mean that such follow-up must not stop at administrative receipt alone and must enable the public to obtain information regarding the status of their submissions within the legislative process.

Also read:
Petitioner Seeks Recognition of Public Participation Rights in Lawmaking Process

The Preliminary Examination Hearing for Petition No. 78/PUU-XXIV/2026 was initially held on Monday (March 2, 2026). In that hearing, the Petitioner argued that the challenged provisions are inconsistent with citizens’ constitutional rights in the exercise of popular sovereignty and public participation in the legislative process.

Appearing without legal counsel, the Petitioner maintained that Article 1(2) of the 1945 Constitution affirms that sovereignty resides in the people and is exercised in accordance with the Constitution. She argued that the exercise of popular sovereignty does not end with electoral mechanisms such as general elections, but continues through meaningful public participation in lawmaking.

According to the Petitioner, public participation must not end at the stage of submitting aspirations, but must be accompanied by clarity regarding how those aspirations are processed within the legislative process.

She further contended that although Article 72(g) assigns the DPR the function “to follow up on public aspirations and complaints,” it lacks parameters concerning form, stages, time limits, and traceability. Meanwhile, Article 234(3)(j) regulates only the receipt and distribution of aspirations within the DPR’s internal rules, without integrating an obligation for transparent follow-up. This condition, she argued, creates a normative gap between the recognition of popular sovereignty and its practical implementation, leaving public aspirations at risk of being reduced to mere administrative formality without clarity of their status in the legislative process. (*)

Explore the Case: Petition No. 78/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author               : Utami Argawati
Editor                 : Lulu Anjarsari P.

Public Relations: Fauzan Febriyan
Translator          : SO

 

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.

---