EKSISTENSI HAK RECALL PARTAI POLITIK TERHADAP ANGGOTA DEWAN PERWAKILAN RAKYAT DI INDONESIANIM.: 24203011031Ilyas Satria AgungauthorRegulations regarding the right to recall members of the
House of Representatives (DPR) in Indonesia continue to place
political parties as the primary authority in the Interim Replacement
(PAW) mechanism. These provisions are set forth in Law No. 17 of
2014 on the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of
Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD),
and Regional People’s Representative Councils (DPRD); Law No. 7
of 2017 on General Elections; and Law No. 2 of 2011 on Political
Parties, which grant political parties the right to propose the removal
of DPR members. The recall mechanism is more frequently used as
an instrument of internal oversight and control within political parties
rather than as a mechanism for political accountability to the people
as the grantors of the mandate. This situation has the potential to
create a conflict with the principle of popular sovereignty as affirmed
in Article 1, paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Based on these
issues, this study aims to critically examine the existence of the right
of recall from the perspective of popular sovereignty and to formulate
a framework for the right of recall from the perspective of Siyāsah
Dustūriyyah.
This study employs a normative legal research method,
applying both the statutory approach and the conceptual approach.
Research data were obtained through a literature review drawing on
primary and secondary legal sources. Subsequently, all data were
analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods, specifically content
analysis, to examine, interpret, and draw conclusions regarding the
legal issues under study.
The research findings indicate that: First, the mechanism for
recalling members of the House of Representatives (DPR) in
Indonesia still positions political parties as the dominant party, as
stipulated in Article 239 of the MD3 Law, thus reflecting “party
recall” rather than “constituent recall.” This situation does not yet
fully reflect the principle of popular sovereignty because constituents,
as the grantors of the mandate, do not yet have sufficient say in the
process of revoking that mandate; consequently, there is a risk that
the accountability of DPR members may shift from the people to political parties. The right of recall remains necessary as an
instrument of oversight and accountability for DPR members. Second,
the recall mechanism from a constitutional perspective is not intended
to eliminate the authority of political parties, but rather to establish a
balanced distribution of authority: political parties initiate the recall
process, legal mechanisms conduct the review, and the people
determine the revocation of the mandate through a vote. This formula
is considered to better reflect the sovereignty of the people and is
capable of realizing the public interest in the form of political
oversight and accountability, while simultaneously preventing harm
in the form of abuse of authority, domination by party elites, and
disregard for the will of the people.329 Partai Politik2026-08-11UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARIAH DAN HUKUMThesis