As the first target of the DPR's orderliness, Commission II of the DPR accuses the DKPP of being picky about complaints

JAKARTA, KOMPAS – The leadership of the Honorary Council of Election Organizers or DKPP became the first target of state officials evaluated by the DPR following the ratification of the new DPR Rules of Procedure. In a closed meeting with DKPP on Tuesday (11/2/2025) at the Parliament Complex, Jakarta, Commission II of the DPR criticized DKPP's actions for preempting cases that are being filed in the Constitutional Court. DKPP denied this.

On February 3, 2025, the DPR has just passed a revision of DPR Regulation Number 1 of 2020 concerning Rules of Procedure (Tatib). One of the revised points is to provide room for the DPR to periodically evaluate state officials they have selected. With the enactment of the DPR Tatib revision, now all state officials appointed in the DPR Plenary Session can be evaluated by the DPR.

However, just a week later, the DPR immediately implemented the new Rules of Procedure. Commission II of the DPR on Tuesday (11/2/2025) summoned the DKPP. As stated in the invitation letter from Commission II of the DPR to the leadership of the DKPP, it was mentioned that the new authority of the DPR resulting from the revision of the DPR's Rules of Procedure served as the basis for the meeting invitation. The meeting with the DKPP was held behind closed doors for about three hours.

The Chairman of Commission II of the DPR from the Nasdem Party Faction, Rifqinizamy Karsayuda, when met after the meeting, said that there are two things evaluated by Commission II of the DPR, namely the performance evaluation institutionally because DKPP is an electoral ethics court. Secondly, he did not deny that the evaluation was also carried out personally on the DKPP leaders who were appointed based on the results of the fit and proper test conducted by the DPR.

"Why do we do it in secret? We want to maintain the honor and dignity of our work partners," said Rifqinizamy.

He revealed that there are several important notes from the results of this evaluation meeting, for instance, the lack of a transparent and open system related to complaint management, examination, and trial at DKPP. There are complaints that have been pending for a very long time but have not yet been brought to trial. However, there are also complaints that have just been submitted but are quickly brought to trial and even quickly decided.

Rifqinizamy stated that DKPP reasoned that it applies the principle of prioritizing certain cases over others. One of the reasons presented by DKPP, according to him, is that DKPP prioritizes cases that are being submitted to the Constitutional Court (MK) so that DKPP's decisions can provide input for the evidence process in the MK.

"In our opinion, this statement is somewhat fatal because ethical adjudication and the Constitutional Court are two different matters. Do not let ethical adjudication decide first, while the court that has constitutional authority has not decided anything yet. This, after all, can lead to slander," he emphasized.

Based on the evaluation results, Rifqinizamy admitted that Commission II of the DPR has made recommendations. However, he was reluctant to disclose the results of these recommendations, including whether the recommendations included proposals for the removal of the DKPP leadership proposed by the DPR. He only stated that the recommendations were directly submitted to the DPR leadership for follow-up in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. "That's all," he said.

Deputy Chairman of Commission II of the House of Representatives from the Democratic Party Faction Dede Yusuf also explained that the meeting was held behind closed doors because it would provide a warning and several notes. On the basis of ethics, Commission II of the House of Representatives decided to hold the meeting behind closed doors.

"Yes, if we reprimand, we won't be allowed to appear on YouTube, what will it look like. This is just a normal reprimand, an evaluation. Yes, there will definitely be a reprimand, there will definitely be," said Dede.

Information obtained by Kompas from a member of the House of Representatives, there is one case that is indeed being questioned which resulted in the summons of the DKPP leadership this Tuesday. One of the cases in question is the DKPP's decision to dismiss three commissioners of the General Election Commission (KPU) of Palopo City, South Sulawesi.

According to the DKPP decision, the three KPU commissioners were found guilty of violating the code of ethics in granting the status of fulfilling the requirements for the mayoral candidate supported by the Gerindra and Demokrat Parties, Trisal Tahir. The dismissal decision was delivered by DKPP member Ratna Dewi Petallolo on January 24, 2025.

Trisal is the elected mayoral candidate of Palopo. However, his election is currently being challenged at the Constitutional Court due to the alleged invalidity of Trisal's diploma. Until now, the case is still ongoing at the Constitutional Court for the agenda of the evidentiary hearing.

For your information, Ratna Dewi Pettalolo is one of the DKPP members proposed by the DPR and her term of office will only end in 2027. There are two other names of DKPP leaders who were also proposed by the DPR, namely I Dewa Kade Wiarsa Raka Sandi and Muhammad Tio Aliansyah.

DKPP Chairman Heddy Lugito refused to answer when asked whether the meeting also touched on the case in Palopo City. Meanwhile, Dewi denied it. "No (there was a discussion of the DKPP decision regarding the dismissal of three KPU commissioners in Palopo City)," said Dewi.

According to Dewi, the meeting with Commission II of the DPR was a regular evaluation meeting and did not touch on personal cases. "No, just a regular evaluation," she said.

Heddy revealed that the evaluation of the DKPP was indeed based on the DPR Tatib which had just been revised by the DPR. With a smile, he then said that the DKPP felt honored as the institution that was evaluated for the first time by the DPR.

Heddy admitted that he was not bothered by the evaluation conducted by the DPR. Because, the DKPP is also funded by the APBN. However, when it resulted in the removal of the DKPP ranks by the DPR, he did not answer firmly. "Don't just say. It hasn't been (proven to the point of removal). I don't know that. I didn't hear that," said Heddy, who is the leader of the DKPP proposed by the president.

However, he denied that he was considered too slow in completing cases submitted to the DKPP. He also disagreed with the assumption that the DKPP was selective in its cases. According to him, all cases had been processed according to procedure and in the order of the cases submitted.

"I don't understand which decision, yes. This, you know, we do everything according to the cases we handle, according to the order of cases that come in, that's all. That's what we always do," said Heddy.

Separately, Minister of Law Supratman Andi Agtas when met at the Parliament Complex, Tuesday (11/2/2025), was reluctant to comment on the DPR Tatib which now gives the DPR the authority to evaluate state officials. According to him, that is the authority of the DPR, not the Ministry of Law.

Moreover, Supratman continued, the DPR Tatib is an internal regulation of the DPR, so the government cannot interfere in commenting on the substance of the DPR Tatib. "So of course if there is a change in the rules of procedure that regulate the DPR, it does not feel right for me as the Minister of Law to regulate it. Because that is an internal matter of the DPR," said Supratman.

He was also reluctant to speculate that in the future the law enforcement conditions would be disrupted due to the implementation of the DPR Tatib which could at any time remove MK judges, supreme court judges, KPK leaders, and KY commissioners. "I am not allowed to give an opinion regarding that. I just want to emphasize that it is not the domain of the Minister of Law to assess a regulation from another institution, especially since we do not carry out a harmonization process in the Ministry of Law or the government," said Supratman.