Jakarta -The Constitutional Court granted part of the petition for judicial review of Law no. 2/2018 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 17 Year 2014 concerning the People’s Consultative Assembly, the People’s Legislative Assembly, the Regional Representative Council, and the Regional House of Representatives or the Law on MD3.
Petitioner Case No. 16 / PUU-XVI / 2018, the Forum on Law and Constitutional Studies (FKHK), challenges controversial articles in the MD3 Law, namely Article 73 paragraph (3), (4), (5), (6) any person who is absent from the call of the DPR.
Subsequently, Article 122 letter l concerns the legal steps of the Court of Honor Council (MKD) against the honor of members and the institution of the DPR. Finally, Article 245 paragraph (1) concerning the examination of representatives of the people should be preceded by the consideration of the Honorary Court of the Parliament before it is approved in writing from the President.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court (MK) accepts the unconstitutionality of Article 73 paragraph (3), (4), (5), and (6), Article 122 letter l. However, the Constitutional Court rejected the petition of all arguments of unconstitutionality of Article 245 paragraph (1) of MD3 Law by giving new norm.
Related to Article 73, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said the authority of involuntary summoning can create a fear of society. As a result, the arguments of the petitioners that the enforcement authority can alienate the relationship of members of the People’s Legislative Assembly to constituents may become a reality.
“According to the Court, the Petitioners’ petition regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 73 Paragraph (3), (4), (5), and (6) is legally justified,” he explained when reading the legal consideration in Jakarta on Thursday (28/6/2018).
Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, who read the consideration of Article 122 letter l, states that MKD has no right to take other legal steps against external parties. In essence, he explained, the MKD only upholds the ethics and behavior of members of Parliament.
“Thus external parties can not be prosecuted by an internal ethics enforcement agency such as MKD,” Saldi said.
Meanwhile, related to Article 245 paragraph (1), the Constitutional Court negates the role of MKD as a consideration to examine members of the DPR before being approved by the president. The provision was deemed incompatible with the function of MKD as an institution of prevention, supervision, and the violation of ethics.
However, the Constitutional Court does not agree with the wishes of the applicant to remove the norm. As a result, the Constitutional Court chose to amend Article 245 paragraph (1) of the MD3 Law so that it reads, ‘Calling and requesting information to DPR members suspected of committing offensive offenses must obtain written approval from the President.’
“Judge, grant the applicant’s petition in part,” said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Assembly Anwar Usman when reading the judgment of the verdict.