The Regional Representatives Council is a result of the reform movement. The institution was established following the third amendment of the 1945 Constitution in 2001.
The creation of the DPD started from the idea of fractions at the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) during the constitutional amendment stipulating that representatives on a representative council should be elected in legislative elections. Thus, the positions of representatives from the regions and professions who were appointed by the government to the legislature were scrapped.
Second, the creation of the DPD is also linked to regional autonomy, which requires an institution at the national level as a form of representation of regional interests.
Yet since its establishment, the DPD has been full of arguments regarding its power and position. In the book Dewan Perwakilan Daerah, Menurut Undang-Undang Dasar Tahun 1945 dan Sistem Bikameral dalam Lembaga Perwakilan Indonesia (Regional Representatives Council, according to the 1945 Constitution and Bicameral System in Indonesian Representatives Institution), Subardjo wrote that at that time the Indonesian Armed Forces, which included the police, faction consistently opposed the DPD because it would potentially go against the fourth and fifth tenets of Pancasila state ideology. Meanwhile, the PDI-P faction and the professional group rejected the “legislative institution” labeling of the DPD. The DPD is given limited power and tasks in the Constitution.
On the other hand, the Golkar Party faction demanded the DPD and the House of representatives (DPR) be given legislative and supervisory functions. The Crescent and Star Party faction and regional representative group wanted the DPD to function the same way as the Senate in the United States in a bicameral system context.
Given these arguments, the United Development Party faction proposed a quasi bicameral system as a middle ground. The DPD is not a legislative body but it is given limited power in the law-making process. Such political compromise was realized in articles 22C and 22D of the Constitution, which later became the legal basis for the DPD.
From articles 22C and 22D of the Constitution, it is known that the DPR is more powerful than the DPD. Some attempts to empower itself have been the agenda of the DPD since its existence following the 2004 election. But the fifth amendment of the Constitution proposed by the DPD has not been realized.
The stipulation that the number of DPD members must not be more than one-third of the number of DPR members has become the main challenge in gaining support for constitutional amendment. A proposal for constitutional amendment must come from one-third of all MPR members, or 231 of the 692 MPR members. The number of DPD members is 132. This means the DPD needs support from the DPR for constitutional amendment.
The effort to empower the DPD was also made through a judicial review at the Constitutional Court. In 2013, the court gave three duties to the DPD in legislation, namely proposing draft bills, participating in law deliberation and outlining legislation program.
But in 2008, the Constitutional Court also stated that the requirements that DPD member candidates must not be executives and/or members of a political party is not a constitutional norm according to Article 22E Point 4 of the Constitution. Point 4 stipulates that DPD nominees are to be individuals.
According to the court ruling, members and executive members of a political party can become DPD members. Now, there are DPD members from political parties.
Amid its limited authority, the polemic on the DPD speakership indicates that the chief position in the institution is prestigious and important. This is not only because of some facilities for DPD speakers, such as house, a car and a working room that is more spacious than that of DPD members.
Learning from the case of DPD speaker Irman Gusman, the power struggle for the DPD speaker position was driven also by the struggle for influence. Irman was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison for accepting a Rp 100 million bribe. He was paid the money because he traded his influence in the distribution of imported sugar from the State Logistics Agency (Bulog) in West Sumatra.
Of course, the influence of DPD speakers is not confined to Irman’s case as it could also happen with other issues, such as in the power struggle.