This research analyzes the constraints and challenges faced by the House of Representatives (DPR) in following up on the Constitutional Court's decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, with a focus on political and administrative aspects. Through an in-depth study, this research identifies various obstacles, such as differences of opinion among factions, the influence of political coalitions, and external pressures from the public and urgent national issues. The normative legal research method is an approach that focuses on the applicable legal norms and emphasizes the examination of legal documents, such as laws, regulations, and court decisions Furthermore, this research highlights the complexity of bureaucracy and the limitations of human resources that affect the effectiveness of the legislative process. To address these challenges, this study recommends strategies for improving the quality of human resources and strengthening bureaucratic processes through the restructuring of procedures and the application of technology. The findings of this research are expected to provide valuable insights for the DPR in enhancing accountability and responsiveness to the needs of the public.

Keywords: House of Representatives, Constitutional Court Decision, Legislative Constraints, Political, Administrative.

INTRODUCTION

The House of Representatives (DPR) plays a central role in the legislative system in Indonesia. As a people's representative institution, the DPR is responsible for formulating, discussing, and enacting the laws that are in effect in the country (Pradijonrika, 2022). The legislative process in the DPR involves several stages, starting from the submission of a Draft Law (RUU) by DPR members or the government, followed by discussion and approval at the committee level and plenary meetings (Manan, 2005). Here, the DPR not only functions as a lawmaker but also as a representative voice of the people, where they must consider the aspirations and needs of the constituents they represent. In carrying out its functions, the DPR also has the authority to oversee the implementation of laws and government policies. Through various mechanisms, such as public hearings, the DPR can exercise control over the policies adopted by the executive. This is important to ensure that every law enacted is not only legally valid but also relevant and effective in addressing the issues faced by the community. The involvement of the DPR in the legislative process also reflects the principles of democracy, where every policy adopted results from a process that involves multiple parties and is not entirely dominated by the executive branch (Asshiddiqie, 2004).

The decisions of the Constitutional Court (MK) play a very important role in the legislative process in Indonesia. The MK not only functions as a guardian of the constitution but also serves as a guarantor of justice and the protection of citizens' constitutional rights. When there is a suspicion that a law contradicts the 1945 Constitution, individuals or state institutions can submit a request for judicial review to the MK (Thalib & Sh, 2018). The decisions issued by the Constitutional Court (MK) serve as a reference for the DPR and the government to evaluate and adjust existing policies and laws. The MK's rulings can significantly influence the legislative dynamics, especially when it issues decisions that require the DPR to amend or revise certain laws (Konstitusi, 2010). This creates a situation in which the DPR must be responsive and adapt to the MK's decisions to avoid being caught in prolonged legal conflicts. For example, the MK decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which is highlighted in this study, provides direct instructions to the DPR to make adjustments to certain legislation. This process not only demonstrates the power of the MK in upholding the law but also strengthens the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches within Indonesia's governing system. Thus, the MK's decisions serve as a catalyst for the DPR to enhance the quality and legitimacy of legislative products, ensuring that every law produced aligns with constitutional principles and the aspirations of the people (Arizona, 2023).

One important ruling in electoral law in Indonesia is the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which introduces a new legal norm regarding age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates (Wiradirja et al., 2024). In this decision, the MK ruled to provide an exception to the age requirement for candidates who have previously held or are currently holding an elected office. This decision encourages the need for adjustments to Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections to reflect the new norm established by this ruling. The MK's decision creates a leap in legal interpretation regarding the age limits for candidacy, which were previously regarded as rigid and binding. With this exception, presidential and vice-presidential candidates who have experience in public office now have greater opportunities to participate in elections. This demonstrates that the MK seeks to balance formal qualifications with practical experience, which is essential in the context of national leadership. The relaxation of the age requirement not only opens up opportunities for experienced individuals but also has the potential to reignite public interest in political participation, particularly among young candidates who have the potential to bring about change (Kartika, 2021).

However, this decision also poses new challenges for the House of Representatives (DPR) and policymakers, who must revise the existing electoral laws. Law No. 7 of 2017, which governs various aspects of elections, including candidacy requirements, now needs to be adjusted to align with the MK's ruling. This adjustment is crucial to ensure that every candidate wishing to participate in elections can be treated fairly and equitably. The DPR must act swiftly to adjust the regulations, as the election date approaches and there is a need for legal clarity governing the candidacy process (Qalsum & Wibowo, 2023).

The obligation to follow up on the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling regarding changes in legal norms is regulated in Article 10 Paragraph (1) letter d and Article 10 Paragraph (2) of Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation. These articles state that the House of Representatives (DPR) or the President is required to promptly revise or draft new laws in accordance with the provisions set forth in the MK ruling. This obligation highlights the importance of a swift response from both the legislative and executive branches in order to maintain compliance with the law and the constitution. However, this legislative process is often faced with various challenges, both political and administrative, which can delay the implementation of new legal norms and potentially create legal uncertainty (Wijaya, 2023).

One of the obstacles that often arises in the legislative process is the political dynamics within the DPR (Pawane, Wijaya, & Ilham, 2023). Differences in views among factions and political parties can lead to prolonged debates, thereby delaying the process of revising or drafting new laws. Additionally, conflicts of interest and political ambitions of DPR members can affect the speed and effectiveness of decision-making. In such situations, the interests of political parties or specific groups often overpower the public interest, causing the legislative process, which should be quick and responsive, to be hindered (Levinson, 2016). On the administrative side, challenges may also arise from the preparedness of government apparatus to implement legislative changes. The process of data collection, drafting bills, and the public consultations required before approval often takes a considerable amount of time. A lack of coordination among government agencies and the DPR in responding to the MK ruling can also lead to delays. This situation not only slows down the implementation of new legal norms but also creates uncertainty among the public, who are hoping for legal clarity following the MK ruling. The legal uncertainty resulting from the slow legislative process can negatively impact public trust in legal institutions and government. When the anticipated laws have not yet been revised, the public may experience a legal void that can disrupt social order and reduce political participation.

RESEARCH METHOD

The normative legal research method is an approach that focuses on the applicable legal norms and emphasizes the examination of legal documents, such as laws, regulations, and court decisions. In this study, the researcher seeks to understand and analyze the legal provisions relevant to the topic being investigated, namely the dynamics of the House of Representatives (DPR) in adjusting legislation following Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Using the normative legal method, the researcher will identify the norms produced by the Constitutional Court ruling and how these norms interact with existing legislation. This analysis is conducted by referring to the underlying legal theories and the broader legal and social context to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issue being examined.

The legislative approach in this research emphasizes the study and analysis of regulations related to legislative authority and the mechanisms for adjusting legal norms. This approach includes the examination of Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation, which provides a legal basis for the DPR and the government in responding to the Constitutional Court ruling. Additionally, an analytical approach will be used to evaluate and interpret how the legislative process unfolds after the ruling and to identify various factors influencing the speed and effectiveness of legislative adjustments. By combining these two approaches, this research aims to provide a clear picture of the legislative dynamics within the DPR and the challenges faced in implementing new legal norms, as well as how this impacts legal certainty and justice in the Indonesian legal system.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Legislative Adjustment Processes by the House of Representatives (DPR) Following Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023

According to Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution and Article 47 of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, every decision issued by the Constitutional Court (MK) is final and binding. This emphasizes that the new legal norms resulting from MK decisions must be implemented immediately by the relevant institutions, especially by the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President, through appropriate legislative processes. In this context, Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 serves to amend the provisions regarding the age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates by providing exceptions for candidates who have previously held elected positions. Therefore, adjustments to Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections are crucial to ensure that the law aligns with the new norms set by the MK.

According to Article 10 Paragraph (1) letter d of Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation, any follow-up to an MK decision must be regulated in the form of legislation. In other words, the DPR and the President have the responsibility to revise the laws to comply with the new norms resulting from the MK decisions. Article 10 Paragraph (2) also stresses that the DPR or the President is obliged to follow up on decisions issued by the MK. In this case, revisions to the Election Law need to be carried out as soon as possible to avoid legal vacuums and to provide clarity regarding the requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidacies. This revision process is not only important to fulfill the legal obligations mandated by the MK but also to maintain public trust in the electoral system and state institutions. If the law revisions are not carried out promptly, there is potential for confusion and legal uncertainty that could disadvantage candidates and voters. Furthermore, transparency and accountability in the legislative process should also be considered, so that the public can understand the changes that occur and their impact on upcoming elections. Thus, this adjustment becomes not only a legal obligation but also a strategic step to strengthen the legitimacy of the political system in Indonesia.

On October 16, 2023, the Constitutional Court (MK) issued an important decision regarding the minimum age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, as regulated in Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections. This provision stipulates that presidential and vice-presidential candidates must be a minimum of 40 years old. In this process, six cases were filed to test the validity of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law. Of the six applications, the MK decided to reject three, indicating that Article 169 letter q of the Election Law remains in effect and the minimum age requirement of 40 years is valid. Additionally, the MK also did not accept the other two applications, indicating that they did not have a sufficiently strong legal basis. However, the MK granted one application, indicating the possibility of certain changes or exceptions regarding the age limits for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The decision made by the Constitutional Court has significant impacts on the presidential and vice-presidential election processes in Indonesia, as it establishes the minimum age requirements that must be met by candidates in accordance with the provisions in the Election Law. This decision reflects the important role of the MK as the interpreter of the constitution and the guardian of the law in this country.

Previously, several applications with similar constitutional substance were filed, testing Article 169 letter q of the Election Law. In the testing process, six cases were submitted to the MK with different case numbers. The first case, numbered 29/PUU-XXI/2023, involved several petitioners from the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) and other individuals. The second case, numbered 51/PUU-XXI/2023, was initiated by the Indonesian Change Guard Party (Partai GARUDA), which also involved the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP) and the Voter Education Network for the People (JPPR). The third case, registered under number 55/PUU-XXI/2023, involved several individuals holding important positions in local government. Cases four to six, numbered 90/PUU-XXI/2023, 91/PUU-XXI/2023, and 92/PUU-XXI/2023, included petitioners such as Almas Tsaqibbirru Re A, Arkaan Wahyu Re A, and Melisa Mylitiachristi Tarandung, without any associated parties.

In efforts to change the minimum age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates in Indonesia, several petitioners submitted cases to the Constitutional Court (MK) with three variations of requests. The first request sought to lower the minimum age from 40 to 35, 25, or even 21 years, hoping to allow more individuals to qualify as candidates. The second request focused on alternatives considering experience as state organizers, where individuals under 40 who had experience in such duties could be deemed eligible. The third request proposed that experience as provincial, regency, or city mayors could be a qualification for candidacy, even if the applicants were not yet 40 years old.

Various cases related to demands for changes in age limits were submitted to the MK, with varying outcomes. In the first case (29/PUU-XXI/2023), the request to lower the age limit to 35 years was rejected, and dissenting opinions emerged from judges who disagreed with this decision. The second and third cases (51/PUU-XXI/2023 and 55/PUU-XXI/2023) also faced similar rejections, while in the fourth case (90/PUU-XXI/2023), the MK accepted the request to maintain the minimum age of 40 years, but considered experience as a district head as an alternative. In this regard, the various opinions of the judges, both agreeing and disagreeing, reflect the complex debate around the qualifications of leadership candidates in Indonesia. On the other hand, the legal standing of the petitioner in case number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 became a crucial focus. The petitioner, a student inspired to run for office, was deemed not to provide a sufficiently strong argument to demonstrate the constitutional harm experienced, leading the MK to emphasize the need for clear evidence of the relationship between harm and the law being tested. This underscores the principle that only individuals with legitimate and relevant legal interests can file for judicial review, in order to safeguard the integrity of the legal process and prevent abuses of the existing legal mechanisms.

Delegating authority to the Constitutional Court (MK) to review laws against the constitution carries the significant responsibility of upholding justice and the interests of society as a whole. In Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, the MK adopted a broad interpretation of Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017, whereby the minimum age requirement of 40 years can be compensated for by leadership experience as a regional head. However, the MK's interpretation involving the phrase "having held an elected position" does not fully align with the petitioner's arguments, creating confusion regarding how the MK arrived at its decision. This raises concerns about potential abuses of authority, where the MK may create new norms that do not align with the legislators' intentions or the law's spirit, making it crucial for the MK to remain consistent and strict in legal interpretation. The MK argued that the positions of the president, vice president, and regional heads are equivalent as all are obtained through elections, with the leadership experience gained in these positions serving as a substitute for the minimum age requirement. However, criticism arises for not accounting for significant differences between the presidency and regional head roles, which have different responsibilities and functions. Despite previous decisions showing otherwise, this decision highlights inconsistencies that could affect the quality of leadership and democracy in Indonesia.

The legislative process in Indonesia often faces various obstacles and challenges that can impact the effectiveness and efficiency of the enactment of new legal norms. Politically, one of the main constraints is the existence of differing interests among the various factions and political parties in the House of Representatives (DPR). Each political party has different agendas and interests, which often leads to conflicts in decision-making processes. For instance, during discussions on a Draft Law (RUU), opposing factions may become embroiled in lengthy negotiations, which in turn hinders the enactment of the bill. Additionally, frequently changing political dynamics, such as urgent national issues or uncertainties within the governing coalition, can disrupt the DPR's focus and commitment to legislative processes.

Administratively, challenges may also arise in the form of a lack of qualified human resources within the DPR. Many DPR members may be new and may not possess the experience or in-depth understanding of the legal substance being discussed. This can result in a slow legislative process due to a lack of competence in effectively analyzing and drafting bills. Moreover, bureaucracy within legislative institutions can also pose an obstacle. The processes of proposing, discussing, and enacting bills often get bogged down in complicated and convoluted administrative procedures, making it difficult for DPR members to reach the necessary agreements.

The impact of these obstacles on the implementation of new legal norms is quite significant. Firstly, delays in enacting bills can lead to legal uncertainty in society. When the new legal norms that are expected to regulate an aspect of community life are postponed, this can create a legal vacuum that risks leading to disputes or other issues within society. Additionally, if bills are passed without sufficiently mature processes, there is a possibility that the resulting norms will be ineffective or even contrary to the actual needs of society. Public dissatisfaction with the legislative process can also increase, which in turn undermines public trust in the DPR and the legislative system as a whole.

Challenges and Efforts Faced by the House of Representatives (DPR) in Following Up on Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023

The House of Representatives (DPR) plays a crucial role in Indonesia's legislative system, especially following Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which changed the minimum age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. This decision not only impacts the political landscape in Indonesia but also demands the DPR to promptly follow up with the enactment of relevant new legal norms. However, in carrying out its duties, the DPR faces various challenges, both politically and administratively. Political hurdles often emerge from internal dynamics, such as differing opinions among factions, as well as external pressures from public demands and other institutions. Administratively, the DPR also encounters challenges related to bureaucracy and resources, which can impede the smooth legislative process.

In following up on Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, the DPR faces significant political challenges. One major issue is the internal political dynamics within the legislative body itself, where differences in opinion and interests among factions often lead to a lack of alignment in formulating new legal norms. Each faction has varying agendas and priorities, which can result in stagnation in the legislative process. Additionally, the influence of existing political coalitions plays a crucial role in determining the policy direction taken by the DPR. Sometimes, the relationships among parties can be discordant, making it difficult to reach agreements, especially when some parties hold opposing views regarding the necessary changes following the MK's ruling.

On the other hand, external influences are equally significant in hindering the DPR from responding to the ruling. Diverse public demands and pressures from other institutions often push the DPR to act more swiftly; however, this can also add complexity to the decision-making process. Urgent national and regional issues often become the backdrop that affects the DPR's legislative priorities, thereby increasing the burden on members to compromise and seek appropriate solutions. Public pressure for more inclusive and equitable changes, particularly regarding policies related to the age limits for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, creates high expectations that the DPR must respond to quickly, but this sometimes results in less-thought-out decisions due to haste. Therefore, confronting these challenges requires careful and collaborative strategies from all elements of the DPR to ensure that the legislative process is effective and responsive.

Administrative challenges in the legislative process at the House of Representatives (DPR) often pose significant barriers in following up on Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. One of the main challenges is the complexity of bureaucratic procedures required for the enactment of new legal norms. The legislative process in the DPR not only involves formal stages but also requires intensive coordination among various commissions and factions. Furthermore, the lack of competent human resources within the DPR can slow down the process. Members of the DPR often do not possess an in-depth knowledge of the issues at hand, including the legal and technical aspects related to the MK's ruling, making it challenging to draft and discuss the appropriate Draft Laws (RUUs).

In addition, time and resource limitations also present an unavoidable challenge. The scheduling of meetings and discussions on RUUs is often hindered by the DPR's busy agenda, as well as conflicts of interest among members. Inadequate budget allocations to support the legislative process may also hinder the effectiveness of the DPR's work, as limited funding complicates the procurement of necessary tools and facilities to support thorough research and analysis concerning issues related to the MK's decision. All these challenges create a situation where the DPR is compelled to work under time pressure, often sacrificing the quality of legislative outcomes to meet set deadlines. Therefore, it is essential for the DPR to evaluate and improve its administrative and managerial systems to execute legislative duties more efficiently and effectively.

The House of Representatives (DPR) recognizes the importance of following up on Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 with effective strategic steps. One primary strategy that can be implemented is the enhancement of the quality of human resources (HR) among DPR members. This can be achieved through training and capacity-building programs focused on legislative understanding, constitutional matters, and current issues related to decision-making. Such training will equip DPR members not only with theoretical knowledge but also practical skills in drafting and discussing Draft Laws (RUUs). Additionally, the DPR can collaborate with institutions or organizations with expertise in law and legislation, such as universities, research institutions, or non-governmental organizations. This collaboration is expected to bring new perspectives and enrich discussions within the DPR, as well as improve the quality of decisions made.

Besides enhancing HR, the DPR also needs to strengthen the existing bureaucratic processes for the submission and discussion of RUUs. One step that can be taken is to reorganize procedures to facilitate and expedite the legislative process. The DPR should evaluate each step in the RUU submission process to identify and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. Strengthening these structures and procedures is essential to ensure that proposed RUUs can be discussed effectively and efficiently. Moreover, the adoption of technology in the legislative process is also crucial. By utilizing digital tools, such as legislative management information systems, the DPR can enhance efficiency and transparency in the submission, discussion, and monitoring of RUUs. The use of technology also allows for better public access to follow the legislative process, thereby increasing the DPR's accountability to the public. Through a combination of improving HR quality and strengthening bureaucratic processes, the DPR is expected to be more responsive and effective in following up on the MK's ruling and creating quality legal norms.

CONCLUSION

The legislative process in the House of Representatives (DPR) is not free from various challenges, both politically and administratively. These challenges include internal dynamics involving differences of opinion and interests among factions, as well as the influence of political coalitions that often affect decision-making. Additionally, external challenges such as public demands and pressing national issues also play an important role in influencing the DPR's ability to follow up on Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. In facing these challenges, the DPR needs to understand the importance of integrating various perspectives and interests in the legislative process to produce legal norms that reflect the aspirations of society as a whole.

To address the existing obstacles, the DPR must implement strategies focused on enhancing human resource quality and strengthening bureaucratic processes. Through targeted training and collaboration with other institutions, the DPR can improve members' competencies in the field of legislation. Restructuring procedures and applying technology in the legislative process can also accelerate and simplify the submission and discussion of Draft Laws (RUUs). With these measures, the DPR is expected to adapt to the demands of the times, enhance accountability, and be more responsive to the needs of society, while ensuring that decisions made align with the principles of justice and public interest.

REFERENCES