MK Listens to the Public Voice

KOMPAS/WAWAN H PRABOWO

The recently adopted Law on Legislative Institutions (MD3 Law) was rejected several organizations, including the Community Coalition to Reject MD3 in Tebet, Jakarta, on Thursday (15/3/2018). The coalition, which initiated a change.org petition, invited the community and supporters of the petition to jointly propose a judicial review of the MD3 Law to the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court (MK) unanimously decided to cancel and reinterpret Law No. 2/2018.

Law No. 2/2018 on the second amendment to Law No. 17/2014 on legislative institutions (the House of Representatives, the People’s Representative Assembly, People’s Representatives Council, the Regional Representatives Council and the Jakarta Council), or the MD3 Law, was enacted on March 15. When it was discussed in the House, the draft law raised questions in the community because initially, the revision of the MD3 Law was only done to give a chair to the cadre of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (DPI-D), which was the winner of the 2014 General Election. That was the agreement of the political parties in the House.

In its development, not only the composition of the leadership of the House, Regional Representatives Council and the People’s Consultative Assembly was changed by representatives of the people and government. The amendment of the MD3 Law also gave the House excessive authority. The Ethics Council (MKD), for example, is able to take legal action against those deemed as degrading the dignity of the House or members of the House.

The House can also ask government agencies to forcibly detail and hold hostage someone who does not fulfill the call of the House. The House can also impose its recommendations and strengthen its rights to immunity. The people expressed strong objections to these efforts, which was supported by this government.

In accordance with the amendment of the 1945 Constitution, the House is a lawmaking institution along with the executive body. However, the House cannot indiscriminately "impose" the law it makes because the people have the right to propose a judicial review to the Constitutional Court. And, against Law No. 2/2018, a number of organizations filed their right to propose a judicial review with various considerations.

ANTARA/RIVAN AWAL LINGGA

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Anwar Usman (center) with Judge Saldi Isra (left), Aswanto (second left), Suhartoyo (second right) and I Dewa Gede Palguna (right) preside over a hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 2/2018 on legislative institutions (MD3 Law) in the MK building in Jakarta on Thursday (28/6/2018). The MK ruled that some parts of the MD3 Law were unconstitutional.

The court, on Thursday (28/6/2018), decided to revoke Article 73 Paragraph (3), (4), and (6) and Article 122 Letter (l) of the amended MD3 Law, and also reinterpreted Article 245 Paragraph (1) (Kompas, 29/6).

The court declared that the House of Representatives has no right to ask state agencies to forcibly detain anyone who fails to meet the House’s instructions. The House is a legislative body, a lawmaking institution; not the law enforcer. The House should not take over the rule of law. The court’s verdict is like returning the House to its origins, namely le parle in French, meaning “to speak”. The duty of the House is to speak, to fight for the interests of the people and to supervise the executive body. The laws being made should also be in accordance with the aspirations of the people voiced by the House as representatives of the people.

The court in its verdict also restores the position of the ethics council as a tool of the House. Summonses against House members who are accused of committing a criminal offense only requires the written consent of the President, there is no need for consideration from the ethics council as regulated in Article 245 Paragraph (1) of Law No. 2/2018. The council cannot take legal action against other parties, as previously regulated in Article 122 Letter (l) of the MD3 Law.

Actually, in the MD3 Law, there is still Article 74 related to the House, which can impose its recommendation to be carried out by other parties, and Article 204, which enables the inquiry committee to forcibly summon and detain parties who do not meet the summons.

However, the court’s verdict on Thursday is a relief. The substance of the other articles is not much different from the one already tested by the court.