The Constitutional Court conducted judicial review on Law No. 3 of 2004 regarding the Amendments to Law No. 23 of 1999 concerning Bank Indonesia (BI Law), on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 10.00 Western Indonesia Time at the courtroom of the Constitutional Court, at Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat No. 7, Central Jakarta. The panel hearing with an agenda of examining revised petition was chaired by Prof. H.A. Mukhtie Fadjar, S.H., M.S, with member Justices Prof. H.A.S. Natabaya, S.H., LL.M, and Soedarsono. S.H. and Substitute Registrar Alfius Ngatrin, S.H.

This case number 8/PUU-V/2007 was filed by D. Sjafri, a veteran of the 1945 Independence Was and his colleagues, representing Cooperative for the Project of the Creation of Job Opportunities for 100 Million Youths (Cooperative for the Project RH-100-GM). The Petitioners requested the Panel of the Constitutional Court Justices to grant their petition, because the Petitioners are of the opinion that BI Law is contradictory to the principles of the people’s sovereignty, rule of law state, equity and the division of powers as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioners are of the opinion that their constitutional rights and/or authorities are impaired by the application of the BI Law.

At such court hearing, Desi Natalia, one of the Petitioners stated that the application of Article 11 paragraph (4) and Article 62 paragraph (2) of the BI Law, which require the government to bear financial responsibilities in the event of crisis in the banking industry, has resulted in impediments for the Cooperative for obtaining government support and facilities to strengthen its capital. As a result, the Cooperative fails to conduct its function and role to achieve its objective, namely providing job opportunities for one hundred million of Indonesian youths. “Accordingly, the Project of the Creation of Job Opportunities for 100 Million Youths which should serve a solution to iron out multi-dimensional crisis cannot be realized,” Desi explained.

In his responses, Justice Natabaya questioned the grounds for petition, which tends to clarify that such petition is more closely related to the issue of the creation of job opportunities. In addition to that, the BI Law is not related to the grounds of the petition filed by the petitioner. Natabaya has also added, “Articles of the BI Law which will be reviewed seem not to have any relations to the articles of the 1945 Constitution as argued.”

However, considering that the period for revising the petition has lapsed, the Chairperson of the Panel of Justices, A. Mukthie Fadjar stated that the petition concerned will be considered and discussed in the plenary meeting of the Constitutional Court Justices. (ardli)