Urgensi Aturan Penggunaan Hak Imunitas Anggota DPRD dalam Penyampaian Pendapat

Abstract

The immunity rights of legislative members constitute one of the important pillars in a democratic system aimed at protecting the independence of people's representative institutions in carrying out legislative, supervisory, and budgetary functions without intimidation or pressure from any party. The formulation of problems in this research are: 1) How is the regulation of DPRD members' immunity rights in Indonesia's legal system or hierarchy, 2) How do Indonesia's legal criteria determine the boundaries between criticism and defamation against regional heads (based on defamation offenses), and 3) What are the judge's considerations in assessing the use of DPRD members' immunity rights regarding criticism of regional heads' official trips based on Supreme Court Decision Number 395 K/Pid/2021. The method used in this writing is normative juridical research method, which is a method that refers to legal norms conducted through library studies related to the problems being researched, this research has a descriptive nature, and the data is analyzed qualitatively. The research findings reveal that although immunity rights are guaranteed hierarchically from the 1945 Constitution to regional regulations, such protection has firm limitations and is not absolute in nature. Constitutional Court Decision No. 76/PUU-XII/2014 has clarified that immunity only applies to functional aspects directly related to legislative duties, not to common criminal acts, while the criteria for distinguishing between legitimate criticism and defamation are based on good faith, factual basis, public interest, and proper manner of delivery. Specifically, Supreme Court Decision No. 395 K/Pid/2021 in the Sony Hendra Ratissa case affirms that immunity rights do not protect DPRD members who express criticism outside official forums in an improper and dignity-degrading manner, despite the factual basis of their criticism, thus legislative members must still use formal mechanisms and maintain ethics in expressing opinions to obtain legitimate legal protection.