Regarding Closed Meetings in the DPR

Responding to the argument that there were closed-door meetings discussing the bill, the Constitutional Court referred to Article 229 of Law 17/2014 concerning the MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD and DPR RI Regulation 1/2020 concerning the Rules of Procedure: in principle, DPR meetings are open, unless declared closed. As long as the meeting leader—with the agreement of the DPR and the Government—determines that the meeting is closed, the meeting and its discussions and decisions are confidential and not for public announcement. If the meeting is closed but its contents are not declared confidential, a summary or minutes of the meeting may be disclosed in part or in whole to the public.

Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court recommends an evaluation so that the determination of closed meetings is more selective, with clear reasons, and the design of the rules of procedure encourages as many open meetings as possible to ensure the principle of transparency.

Dissenting Opinion Four Justices

Four justices delivered dissenting opinions. Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, along with Saldi Isra and Enny Nurbaningsih, considered the petition should be well-founded in law and partially granted. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani was of the view that Petitioner III also did not have legal standing (legal standing), as did Petitioners I and II, so the petition should have been declared inadmissible in its entirety.