L

awmakers have protested against a Constitutional Court (MK) ruling that stipulates the need for a presidential permit to question members of legislative bodies in a criminal case.

The court granted on Tuesday partial concessions to a judicial review disputing an article from the 2014 Legislative Institution Law '€” otherwise known as MD3 '€” that provided lawmakers with relative immunity from law enforcement.

Junimart Girsang, deputy chairman of the House of Representatives'€™ ethics council, questioned whether the court ruling would have practical use, considering that it blurred the lines between the responsibilities of the executive and the legislature.

'€œWould it even be possible for the executive branch to meddle in legislative matters, even if was to uphold the rule of law?'€ Junimart asked at the House complex on Wednesday.

The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politician maintained that the disputed article, in its original form, was sufficient.

The original Article 245 of the MD3 Law requires law enforcers to seek prior approval from the House'€˜s Ethics Committee (MKD) to be able to question members of legislative institutions as part of a criminal investigation. If the MKD fails to respond within 30 days, law enforcers can then proceed with the interrogation.

In the controversial court ruling, presiding MK judge Arief Hidayat explained that the authority had been shifted from the ethics council to the president because the MKD, as an internal House body, was not recognized in the Constitution.

'€œThe phrase regarding written permission in Article 245 paragraph (1) of the 2014 MD3 Law contravenes the 1945 Constitution and will have no legal bearing unless it presupposes the approval of the President,'€ Arief said, reading aloud the decision on Tuesday.

Overshadowed by corruption cases, the previous House batch inserted Article 245 into the MD3 Law to create legal protection against probes from law enforcement institutions.

The court ruling comes as a blow to lawmakers, since it authorizes the president to decide whether or not a lawmaker may be subject to criminal investigation.

Citing paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 245, Junimart argued that law enforcers required no approval to deal with legislators caught red-handed or accused of committing a crime punishable by death, crimes against humanity or crimes that endanger national security.

Seeking written permission also did not apply to lawmakers accused of special crimes such as graft, narcotics abuse or terrorism, he added.

House Commission III chairman Aziz Syamsuddin, on the other hand, claimed that the ruling would not impinge on the law enforcement process, believing that the president would decide wisely whether to approve the questioning of House members.

'€œI believe that the president will give his or her approval in regard to the summons, so long as it is based on legal facts,'€ Aziz, a member of the Golkar Party, told reporters. He called on his colleagues to respect the ruling.

Cabinet Secretary Pramono Anung said that President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo promised not to hinder prosecutions following the MK ruling.

'€œThe President respects the MK ruling [and] he promises that [he] will not use the authority to grant permission to obstruct the law enforcement process,'€ Pramono said in a short message.

Separately, Attorney General'€™s Office (AGO) spokesman Amir Yanto said that the AGO had no choice but to comply with the MK'€™s ruling.

'€œ[The decision] was on the criminal [legal process] and the Constitutional Court'€™s decision is final. Either way, we must comply,'€ he said on Wednesday.

While acknowledging that he had not read the entire court ruling, Amir explained that the AGO would have to thoroughly evaluate the Constitutional Court'€™s decision to see how it would be implemented by state prosecutors.

'€œIt is an additional process that has the potential to [complicate] things, [but] hopefully it won'€™t,'€ he said.

Members of the Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR), who along with three other individuals filed the judicial review with the MK, meanwhile claimed that the court ruling failed to address the core problem originally brought up.

The ICJR said that the MK ruling had ignored the root issue in its decision to shift authority from the House ethics council to the President.