Constitutional Court Responds to MPR Involvement in Constitutional Interpretation

The Constitutional Court (MK) has confirmed a meeting with several leaders of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) of the Republic of Indonesia to discuss a memorandum of understanding concerning the MPR’s involvement in constitutional interpretation and decisions at the Court.

“That was indeed the purpose of the visit,” said Constitutional Court spokesperson and Justice Enny Nurbaningsih when contacted in writing on Thursday (9 July).

Enny assured that there is no issue regarding the MPR’s involvement, as the Assembly may provide information to the Court for relevant petitions under Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law.

The article reads: The Constitutional Court may request information and/or minutes of meetings relating to a petition under examination from the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representative Council (DPD), and/or the President.

“That is indeed in line with Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law, and the Court has previously requested information from the MPR when necessary,” said Enny.

Earlier, MPR Chairman Ahmad Muzani said the MPR’s visit to the Court on Wednesday (8 July) was to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU).

The MoU provides for the MPR to be involved in constitutional interpretation and decisions at the Constitutional Court.

“We have signed [the MoU] — myself as MPR Chairman and Mr Suhartoyo as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court — an MoU between the MPR and the Court concerning copies of Court decisions, which the MPR will also receive, and in many instances the MPR will later be asked to provide input as the Court formulates the rulings,” Muzani said at a press conference following the meeting at the Court building on Wednesday (8 July).

In accordance with the Constitution, Muzani explained that both the MPR and the Court carry out their duties and work within their respective corridors, meaning the two institutions do not interfere with each other’s authority.

However, he said, because the Constitution positions the MPR as the institution deemed to understand the Constitution best, it should be involved in every decision taken by the Constitutional Court.

“Therefore, before the Constitutional Court hands down a decision on such interpretation, we remind and convey that it should also listen to the MPR’s views from the time the Constitution was drafted or amended,” he said.