Why Was the Revised DPR Rules of Procedure Harshly Criticized?

What articles did the DPR insert when revising the Tatib regulations?

The House of Representatives swiftly revised House Regulation Number 1 of 2020 concerning Rules of Procedure, one of which opens the possibility for the House to periodically evaluate state officials they have appointed. The results of this evaluation could eventually lead to recommendations for dismissal.

The proposal to revise DPR Regulation Number 1 of 2020 concerning the Rules of Procedure came from the DPR Honorary Court (MKD) on Monday (3/2/2025). MKD proposed the addition of one article in the revision of the DPR Rules of Procedure, namely Article 228A.

The article states, in order to improve the supervisory function and maintain the honor of the DPR regarding the results of the commission's discussions, the DPR can conduct periodic evaluations of candidates who have been determined in the DPR plenary meeting. The results of the evaluation are binding and are submitted by the commission conducting the evaluation to the DPR leadership for follow-up in accordance with the applicable mechanism.

On the same day, the leadership of the House of Representatives immediately held a Deliberative Body (Bamus) meeting to determine the discussion of the revision of the House of Representatives' Rules of Procedure in the Legislative Body (Baleg) of the House of Representatives. In the Legislative Body of the House of Representatives, the discussion of the revision of the House of Representatives' Rules of Procedure was completed in less than 3 hours and all political party factions agreed to the changes in the House of Representatives' Rules of Procedure. The revision of the House of Representatives' Rules of Procedure was then ratified in the Plenary Session of the House of Representatives on Tuesday afternoon (4/2/2025).

With the ratification of the revised DPR Tatib, now all state officials appointed in the DPR plenary meeting can be evaluated by the DPR, including the leadership of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), commissioners of the General Election Commission (KPU) and the Election Supervisory Body (Bawaslu), up to judges of the Constitutional Court (MK) and judges of the Supreme Court (MA).

Why did the new article in the DPR Tatib draw criticism?

Member of the National Conscience Movement, Lukman Hakim Saifuddin, assessed that the results of the revision of the DPR Tatib were unconstitutional.

The fact is, the rights and authority of the DPR to propose candidates for positions such as Constitutional Court judges, approve Supreme Court judge candidates, or select KPK commissioners, are limited solely to the selection of members of state institutions. This is in no way related to the DPR's authority to dismiss officials of the said state institutions. The mechanism for their dismissal is separately regulated in the founding laws of each state institution.

Meanwhile, a constitutional law lecturer at Andalas University, Padang, Feri Amsari, has asked the DPR to study the differences between DPR regulations and statutory provisions. He suspects that the DPR does not read and understand the 1945 Constitution.

"If he corrects the judicial institution and can dismiss judges, he violates the concept of Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution on independent judicial power. If then judges can be dismissed, of course they are no longer independent in administering justice," said Feri.

Why do the revised DPR Tatib results have the potential to damage national life?

Professor of Constitutional Law at Udayana University, who is also the Chairman of the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court, I Dewa Gede Palguna, revealed that the results of the DPR's procedural rules revision indicate that the DPR does not understand the theory of hierarchy and the binding force of legal norms. If continued, this will create damage in the life of the state.

"This does not need to be answered by the Chairman of MKMK. A third-semester law student is sufficient. Where does the knowledge come from that rules can bind externally? How can DPR not understand the theory of hierarchy and the binding power of legal norms? How can DPR not understand the theory of authority? How can DPR not understand the theory of separation of powers and checks and balances," questioned Palguna when asked for his response to the ratification of DPR's rules that allow the institution to evaluate the state officials it has chosen, Wednesday (5/2/2025).

If the DPR understands the above matters but still enforces these provisions, Palguna believes that the DPR members do not want this country to stand on the fundamental law of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. "But on the laws they like and desire, securing their own interests. This country is ruined, Boss...," said Palguna.

Former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Jimly Asshiddiqie suggested that instead of being able to evaluate the state officials they choose, it would be better to completely evaluate the involvement of the DPR in the selection and recruitment of public officials. This needs to be done so that the DPR can carry out its three main duties, namely legislation, budgeting, and oversight.

How did the DPR respond after seeing public resistance?

Instead of listening to public criticism, the House of Representatives opened up the possibility of strengthening its authority to evaluate state officials they elected with the legal umbrella of the law. That way, the new authority could be stronger and more binding.

Chairman of the Legislative Body (Baleg) of the DPR, Bob Hasan, when met at the Parliament Complex, Jakarta, Wednesday (2/5/2025), said that the article on the authority to evaluate was purely presented to maintain balance between the legislative, judiciary, and executive. He also denied that the revision was made for political considerations.

Bob did not even rule out the possibility of increasing the new rules in the rules of procedure into law. For this, the rules could be included in the revision points of the Law on the MPR, DPR, DPRD, DPD (MD3 Law). This is considered very possible for the DPR to do so that the authority to evaluate is stronger and more binding.

"Yes, it can be improved (into a law). Starting from the rules of procedure first. It is possible, from the rules of procedure to become a law," said the politician from the Gerindra Party.

Is this the first time that members of the 2024-2029 DPR have become the target of public criticism?

Last December, the 2024-2029 DPR, which had just started working since early October 2024, was criticized by the public because it was considered to have "suppressed" the freedom of speech of its own members. Moreover, a number of these members voiced public aspirations.

This happened after the House of Representatives Ethics Court or MKD immediately imposed ethical sanctions on two members of the 2024-2029 DPR in the form of written warnings after delivering criticism. The two DPR members in question are Nuroji from the Gerindra Party Faction and Yulius Setiarto from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) Faction.

Yulius, for example, made a statement regarding the alleged deployment of the police to win certain candidates in the 2024 simultaneous regional head elections (pilkada) and the involvement of the seventh President of the Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo.

Nuroji was tried for ethics because he criticized the increasingly intensive naturalization strategy to strengthen the Indonesian national football team. He conveyed the criticism in a meeting of Commission X of the House of Representatives with the All Indonesia Football Association (PSSI) and the Minister of Youth and Sports in mid-September.

Researcher of Indonesian Parliamentary Concern Community Forum (Formappi), Lucius Karus, suspects that the decision made by MKD against DPR members who conveyed criticism was not aimed at enforcing ethics. The series of decisions actually indicate that MKD is being used for the interests of certain parties.

What else is controversial about this new DPR?

he day before the opening of Session Period II of the 2024-2025 Session Year, members of the Legislative Body or Baleg DPR gathered in the Baleg DPR Meeting Room, Nusantara I Building, Jakarta, Monday (21/1/2025). In the middle of the recess period which should have been used to accommodate public aspirations, they suddenly discussed the plan to revise Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Minerals and Coal.

Initially, Baleg members agreed to form a Working Committee (Panja) for the Minerba Bill. The meeting was still open to the public. However, after that, when the Panja meeting began, the meeting was held behind closed doors.

The discussion meeting of the Minerba Bill seemed to be rushed so that a decision could be made that night. Everything went very quickly. Until finally, at around 19.30 WIB, the DPR Baleg held another plenary meeting to make a decision that the revision of the Minerba Bill would be a DPR initiative proposal.

Researcher of Indonesian Parliamentary Concern Community Forum (Formappi), Lucius Karus, criticized the discussion of Minerba Bill conducted during the recess. "Legislation discussion during the recess tends to be unscheduled and secretive, thus ignoring the practice of participatory bill discussion," said Lucius.