Abstract
Article 239 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the MD3 Law regulates the right of political parties to conduct inter-term dismissal (PAW) of DPR members. However, the ambiguity in Article 239 paragraph (2) letters d and g caused controversy because the terms of PAW became unclear and often misused to resolve internal party conflicts. This study aims to analyze the juridical hermeneutics of the provisions of Article 239 paragraph (2) letter d and g of Law Number 17 of 1014 concerning MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD. The results showed that abstract interpretations of the phrases "proposed by political parties" and "statutory provisions" open up opportunities for subjectivity in dismissing DPR members. Therefore, the recalling arrangement of DPR members requires further clarification to address the abstract issue of interpretation.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
