P

resident Joko “Jokowi” Widodo is considering several options in response to the public outcry over controversial articles in the new Legislative Institutions (MD3) Law, as the time draws near for the law to enter into force — with or without his consent.

The House of Representatives passed the MD3 bill into law on Feb. 12, but Jokowi has been reluctant to sign it ever since. Even without the President’s signature the law will go into effect automatically 30 days after the bill was passed by the House.

The President recently met with several constitutional experts, including former Constitutional Court chief justice Mahfud MD, to discuss possible steps to be taken by the government. The meeting had resulted in three options for Jokowi, presidential spokesman Johan Budi said. One of the options was for the President to sign the law and subsequently issue a regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) to replace or revise at least three articles in the law, he said.

The other two options were for the President to sign the law or to refuse signing it and letting it enter into force automatically. The President welcomed public initiatives to challenge the controversial articles of the law at the Constitutional Court, Johan said. “The President is still mulling over the three options. I haven’t received any information on which option the President has chosen,” he told on Thursday.

Critics have argued that some of the articles grant lawmakers greater powers to avoid criminal investigation, while others silence public criticism. For instance, Article 122 of the law allows the House’s ethics council (MKD) to take legal action against any person or group deemed to have “disrespected the dignity” of the House and its members. Another controversial provision in Article 245 stipulates that, during criminal investigations, lawmakers can only be summoned by authorities after securing consent from the President on the MKD’s recommendations.

Following the amendment, criticism was also directed at Jokowi, since all legislative products are based on deliberation between the House and the government. However, Law and Human Rights Minister Yasonna Laoly was quick to shift the blame to himself, saying Jokowi had only learned about the background of the deliberation when Yasonna reported to the President after the bill had been passed.

Constitutional law expert Feri Amsari said the political dynamics during the deliberation phase may have pushed negotiations with the House to the effect that the President may have “missed” some things at the time.

Given the urgency, which in this case was the existence of a problematic law that brought trouble rather than solutions, Jokowi should opt for issuing the Perppu, he said.

Separately, three groups of plaintiffs filed separate requests for judicial review to challenge the three controversial articles at the Constitutional Court, which held the initial hearing in the case on Thursday.

Irman Putra Sidin, a constitutional law expert who legally represents the Forum on Law and Constitutional Studies (FKHK), argued that the MKD’s power in the law was not in line with the mandate of the House. “The House is not designed to take legal action, let alone push a legal process […], but instead to draft laws and oversee their implementation,” Irman told the bench.

Justice Suhartoyo said the court had given the plaintiffs 14 days to complete their dossiers, including to write the administration number of the MD3 Law, which was expected to be issued next week.