The Constitutional Court Advises The People To Protest To Political Parties For PAW Members Of The DPR Who Are Not Eligible

Illustration of the Constitutional Court (MK). (Antanews)

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) stated that if it was considered that members of the DPR and DPRD were no longer worthy of being members of the council, the people as voters could protest to the political party (parpol) that oversees the member.

This statement was stated in the legal consideration of the Constitutional Court's decision on the judicial review case Article 239 paragraph (2) letter d of Law Number 17 of 2014 concerning the MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD (UU MD3) in case number 199/PUU-XXIII/2025.

"If voters think that there are members of the DPR or DPRD who are not worthy of being members of the DPR or members of the DPRD, voters can object to political parties," said Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah in Jakarta Thursday, confiscated by Antara.

In fact, he added, voters can also convey to political parties for the interim dismissal (PAW) of DPR members or DPRD in question.

In addition, the Court also mentioned the general election period every five years as a forum for evaluation of previously elected council members.

"Volators should not re-elect DPR members or DPRD members who are considered problematic in the next election," said Guntur.

The Court rejected the petition submitted by a student named Ikhsan Fatkhul Azis, Rizki Maulana Syafei, Faisal Nasirul Haq, Muhammad Adnan, and Tsalis Khoirul Fatna.

They tested the constitutionality of Article 239 paragraph (2) letter d of the MD3 Law. In the petitum, the petitioners asked the people, in this case constituents in the electoral district, to be given the right to propose the interim dismissal of members of the DPR.

The Court considered that the arguments for the petitioners' petition had no legal basis. According to the Constitutional Court, the petitioners' desire that constituents be given the right to dismiss council members is not in line with the concept of representative democracy.

Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah when reading legal considerations said Article 22E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia had regulated that election participants to elect members of the DPR and DPRD were political parties.

Therefore, as a logical consequence, the mechanism for interim dismissal (recall) for members of the DPR and DPRD must also be carried out by political parties. Such a mechanism, he said, is a form of implementation of representative democracy.

"The petitioners want constituents in electoral districts to be given the same rights as political parties so that they can propose the interim dismissal of DPR members and DPRD members, basically not in line with representative democracy," he said.

In addition, technically, the Court said that the petitioners' petition was tantamount to re-election in the electoral district concerned. The Constitutional Court considers that it will actually create legal uncertainty.

"Because it is uncertain that voters who have given their voting rights to members of the DPR and members of the DPRD will be dismissed when the general election is held," added Guntur.

The Constitutional Court said that the concerns of the petitioners regarding the dismissal of members of the DPR by political parties had an impact on the dominance of political parties and were not in line with the principles of people's sovereignty, this should not have happened.

In this case, the Constitutional Court reiterated that the implementation of the replacement of DPR members or DPRD by political parties should not be carried out arbitrarily or by violating the law.

"The consideration or assessment of the replacement of DPR members and members of the DPRD by political parties is carried out in line with the existence of the Honorary Court of the Council as a means of completeness of the DPR which aims to maintain and uphold the honor and dignity of the DPR as a representative institution for the people," explained Guntur.

The affirmation has actually been stated by the Court in legal considerations of Decision Number 008/PUU-IV/2006, 38/PUU-VIII/2010, and 22/PUU-XXIII/2025. The Constitutional Court also does not have a strong and fundamental reason to shift from the previous decision.