---

The Constitutional Court (the Court) held a hearing for Case No. 22/PUU-V/2007 on the judicial review of Law No. 25 Year 2007 concerning Capital Investment (the Investment Law) against the 1945 Constitution, on Wednesday (5/9), at the Court’s courtroom scheduled for a Preliminary Examination.

 

Almost identical to the Petitioners’ petition in Case No. 21/PUU-V/2007, in the statement of claims (petitum) of this petition, the Petitioners request the Panel of Constitutional Court Justices to declare the substance of Article 4 Paragraph (2) Sub-Paragraph a, Article 8 Paragraph (1), Paragraph (2), Paragraph (3), Paragraph (4) and Paragraph (5), Article 12 Paragraph (1), Paragraph (2), Paragraph (3), Paragraph (4), and Paragraph (5), Article 21, Article 22 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (3) contrary to the 1945 Constitution. In fact, the Petitioners also request the Panel of Constitutional Court Justices to declare the Investment Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

 

In this case, 22 Petitioners are represented by the Advocacy Team of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation (YLBHI), Legal Aid Institute  Jakarta (Jakarta LBH), and Bandar Lampung LBH. The Petitioners in this case also consist of persons having various backgrounds from farmers, traditional market sellers, laborers as well as fishermen.

 

The principal issue of the petition is that the Petitioners believe that the Investment Law is contrary to the basic principle in the forming of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia which is anti-colonialism and which prioritizes unity and sovereignty and welfare of the people and economic democracy. In addition, according to the Petitioners, the Investment Law is merely aimed at inviting as many as foreign investors by giving extensive facilities. However, on the other hand, the Investment Law in fact creates the potential marginalization of the actors in the real economic power of the nation.

 

In their explanation on the legal standing, the Petitioners represent four elements of the national economic power namely, laborers, farmers and traditional fishermen as well as traditional sellers who believe that their constitutional rights may potentially be impaired due to the application of the Investment Law.

 

With respect to the foregoing explanation, the Panel of Justices consisting of the Chairman of Panel of Justices Dr. H. Harjono, S.H., MCL., Member Justices Prof. Dr. H.M. Laica Marzuki, S.H., and I Dewa Gede Palguna, S.H., M.H. advised the Petitioners to revise their petition by preparing logical construction that could explain which constitutional impairments suffered by each of the Petitioners according to their professions, due to the Investment Law.

 

Meanwhile, with respect to the intention of the Petitioners for the Constitutional Court to cancel all contents of the Investment Law, Panel Member Justice, I Dewa Gede Palguna, S.H., M.H. once again told the Petitioners to provide a more detailed description of the legal ground underlying the argument that each article in the Investment Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

 

“We give you a maximum period of 14 working days to revise the petition,” said Harjono before officially closing the hearing. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)

---