The Law on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representatives Council and Regional Legislative Council is an example of how the lawmakers are poor at lawmaking.
By
·3 minutes read
Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo
People’s Coalition Rejecting MD3 members voice their objection over the law in Tebet, South Jakarta, on Thursday. The coalition, which is the initiator of the change.org/tolakuumd3 petition, asked people to jointly become plaintiffs in the judicial review at the Constitutional Court.
The Law on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD) and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) is an example of how the lawmakers are poor at lawmaking. That law is made only to serve the interests of the elite.
The Law on legislative bodies, known as MD3, is truly problematic. Formally, the House and the government have the authority to create laws. But it is not proper for the House to create a law that will increase its own power and protect its members while curbing people’s freedom. There is surely a conflict of interest there.
In the world of justice, there is a view that nobody can become a judge for their own benefit. Such a view aims to prevent conflicts of interest or abuse of power. It is a reality that the House and the government jointly created laws. But they should have consulted with the public, listened to the voice of the people. This is almost never done.
The MD3 Law, which gives the House Honorary Council (MKD) the authority to take legal measures or other measures against anyone degrading the honor of the institution, creates an impression that the House is anticriticism. The article ignores the social reality about the poor performance of the House particularly regarding its poor attendance at sessions and minimum productivity in lawmaking.
Another weakness is in the relationship between President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly in the lawmaking process. President Jokowi acknowledged he did not receive updates about the bill’s lawmaking process, which sparked controversy, so the President did not sign it. This is another problem.
Regardless of whether there was communication or not between President Jokowi and his minister, the President, as the head of the administration, must be held responsible.
The MD3 Law automatically becomes effective without the signature of the President. Some elements in society are resistant and oppose it. President Jokowi did not want to issue a government regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) because it is considered non-effective as it requires approval of the House.
Suggesting that the people bring the law to the Constitutional Court for a judicial review is a constitutional solution although there is an impression there is an effort to handover the problem to another state institution. Another suggestion that could be considered is for the House or the government to revise the MD3 Law and accommodate people’s input.
Such a move is normal and crucial amid the political year. The House can also take the political initiative by temporarily curbing the power of the MKD, not exercising its power to take any individuals hostage for not responding to its summons through a political decision at the House.
Such a move could be taken to accommodate people’s worries. Such a political move can also come from the House if it still considers itself a representative of the people. The President can also propose revisions to MD3 Law. Let us wait to see who will listen to the voice of the people?
