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) RI to discuss a memorandum of understanding regarding the MPR’s involvement in constitutional interpretation and decisions at the court. “That was indeed the purpose of their visit,” said MK Spokesperson and Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih when contacted via written message on Thursday (9/7). Enny assured there is no issue with the MPR’s involvement because, for relevant petitions, the MPR can provide information to the MK as stipulated in Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law. The article states: The Constitutional Court may request information and/or minutes of meetings related to the petition being examined from the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and/or the President. “It is correct that this is in accordance with Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law, and the MK has also previously requested information from the MPR when necessary,” said Enny. Previously, MPR Chairman Ahmad Muzani stated that the MPR’s visit to the MK on Wednesday (8/7) was to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The content of the MoU is for the MPR to be involved in constitutional interpretation and decisions at the MK. “We have signed [the MoU], I as the Chairman of the MPR, Mr Suhartoyo as the Chairman of the MK, an MoU between the MPR and the MK regarding copies of MK decisions for which the MPR will also receive copies and in many matters the MPR will later be asked for its input in the MK’s formulation of the ruling,” said Ahmad Muzani during a press conference after the meeting at the MK building on Wednesday (8/7). In accordance with the constitution, Muzani explained that both the MPR and the MK carry out their duties and work within their respective corridors. This ensures the two institutions do not interfere with each other’s authority. However, he said, because according to the constitution the MPR is the institution considered to best understand the constitution, it must be involved in every decision-making process at the MK. “Therefore, before the Constitutional Court makes a decision on that interpretation, we remind them, we convey, to also listen to the views of the MPR at the time the constitution was drafted or amended,” he said.