Overview of the MK Decision

Jakarta –

A number of DPR members highlighted the decision Constitutional Court (MK) which separates election national with the elections. The reaction of the legislators was considered as a picture of the Constitutional Court’s decision to harm them.

This was conveyed by the Director of Indonesian Political Parameters Adi Prayitno. He initially considered that politicians in the Indonesian Parliament had kept annoyance to the Constitutional Court.

“A number of Senayan politicians seemed annoyed with the Constitutional Court who were very powerful in deciding a judicial review of a number of laws. Naturally, the Constitutional Court’s decision was often accused of offside, beyond the authority, unconstitutional and others. Even the Senayan politician seemed to be jealous of the Constitutional Court because the law made

In addition, Adi said that the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the election was considered jlimet by the legislators. Then, the Constitutional Court’s decision this time was also considered detrimental.

“The Constitutional Court’s decision seems to make a Senayan politician and in many ways harm them,” he said.

“Jlimet because so many laws are affected from the Constitutional Court’s decision that must be revised, such as the Election Law, the Election Law, the MD3 Law, and the Regional Government Law. Not yet completed the Follow Up related to the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the elimination of the threshold of the presidential candidacy, now a new decision appears that requires a revision of many laws,” he continued.

Furthermore, he assessed that members of the DPR were also often selective about the Constitutional Court’s decision. He mentioned the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 90 regarding the minimum requirements for advanced ages of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.

“Sometimes the Senayan politician likes to select about the Constitutional Court’s decision. In the past the Constitutional Court’s decision number 90 regarding the minimum age requirements for advanced presidential candidates who were considered to have crashed into the ethics of their constitution, their national and regional elections were separated in a fuss.

As is known, a number of DPR members highlighted the Constitutional Court’s decision related to the election. The most recent, Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives Commission VI Nurdin Halid.

He highlighted the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) which requested the national and regional elections to be separated. Nurdin assessed that the Constitutional Court had exceeded his authority and became a new norm forming besides the DPR and the government.

“The Constitutional Court has been too far from entering the realm of forming the law so that a number of Constitutional Court decisions become constitutional polemic. The Constitutional Court entered the realm that was not the authority of the Constitutional Court,” Nurdin told reporters on Saturday (5/7).

“In the 1945 Constitution, the authority of the Constitutional Court is to test the law of the Constitution, decide on the dispute over the authority of state institutions, decide the dissolution of political parties, and decide on disputes of the results of the general election,” he continued.

Nurdin assessed that the Constitutional Court’s decision had been contrary to the 1945 Constitution Article 22E paragraph 1 juncto paragraph 2. Where, in that article stated that the election was held every five years, including the DPRD election.

“The Constitutional Court’s decision is not only constitutional disability, but raises uncertainty against democracy, state administration system, development planning, regional government systems, election governance, state finances and confusing the public and the community,” Nurdin explained.

Also watch “MK decided the election was separated, PKB proposed by the regional head elected by the DPRD” here:

(maa/idh)