---

Principal Applicant Fathul Hadie Utsman attended petition revision session on Act of Hajj Pilgrimage Coordination and Act of Hajj Finance Management, on Tuesday (10/02) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie.

 

 

Fathul Hadie Utsman and his colleagues as hajj applicant revised petition on Act Number 13 Year 2008 of Hajj Pilgrimage Coordination (Undang-Undang Penyelenggaraan Ibadah Haji) and Act Number 34 Year 2014 of Hajj Finance Management (Undang-Undang Pengelolaan Keuangan Haji). The Applicant strengthened petition points and its arrangement.

Under Justice Panel input on previous session, Fathul asserted their petition was normative because it reviewed on norms which violated to Applicant’s constitutional rights. “We try to formulate normative category according to our insight. Normative is citizens’ loss caused by norm implementation or Act interpretation which contrary to the 1945 Constitution,” said him at further session of case number 12 and 13/PUU-XII/2014 on Tuesday (10/2) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

Moreover, Applicant’s constitutional right was violated because the Applicant should paid initial deposit when registering Hajj. According to the Applicant, there was misinterpretation occurred because paying Hajj fund (biaya penyelenggaraan ibadah haji –BPIH) was interpreted as paying initial deposit of hajj fund, whereas the hajj conducted 20 years later. “It is impossible our rights to not pay initial deposit could be fulfilled if the article a quo isn’t declared conditionally constitutional, in terms of interpreted those obliged to pay initial deposit are Hajj applicants who already granted hajj slots,” he explained.

Therefore, the Applicant requested the Constitutional Court to declare only Hajj applicants who have granted hajj slot who required paying Hajj fund. Waiting-list Hajj applicants were not required paying initial deposit of Hajj fund. Moreover, the Applicant requested the Constitutional Court to declare Article 23 (2) Act of Hajj Pilgrimage Coordination regarding the benefit value of Hajj fund which could be used for Hajj operational fund was interpreted as current Hajj fund, rather than waiting-list applicants’ deposit. “If the deposit of waiting-list hajj applicants is used, it means that we consider it taking other people’ rights arbitrarily. Please declared conditionally constitutional,” he added.  

Regarding the Hajj training providers (Kelompok Bimbingan Ibadah Haji –KBIH) as stipulated in Article 30 Act of Hajj Pilgrimage Coordination, the Applicant also asserted the provision caused legal uncertainty. Referring the Article, the Government opened opportunity for private sector to conduct hajj training with extra charge. The payment for hajj training providers should be allocated from fixed Hajj fund.

Previously, the Applicant reviewed Article 4 (1), Article 5, Article 23 (2) and Article 30 (1) Act Number 13 Year 2008 of Hajj Pilgrimage Coordination and several articles on Act Number 34 Year 2014 of Hajj Finance Management. Article 4 (1) Act of Hajj Pilgrimage Coordination stated:

“Indonesian Muslim citizens who able to conduct Hajj Pilgrimage should met the requirements: a. aged minimum of 18 years or married; and b. able to pay Hajj fund”

According to Fathul, the provision was conditionally unconstitutional because declared Muslim citizens could conduct Hajj more than once. In fact, recent Hajj problem was limited Hajj slots. “Hajj applicants should pay initial deposit or whatever it called, while the Hajj conducted 20 years until 25 years later,” said him at first session of case number 12 and 13/PUU-XIII/2015 on Tuesday (27/1) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.  

He assessed the provision on Article 4 (1) Act a quo should be interpreted particularly to Muslim citizen who never went Hajj, while for hajj applicants who had been Hajj weren’t allowed if there were waiting list applicants. “Why? Because in Islam Hajj mandatory only once, al hajju maratun fama zaadaz fahuwa tathawwu, Hajj is only once and the rest of it is sunna’,” he added.

Moreover, the Applicant also questioned initial deposit of Hajj fund which obliged when Hajj applicant registered, as stipulated in Article 5 Act of Hajj Pilgrimage Coordination. The Applicant assessed the definition of paying Hajj fund should be interpreted as the current Hajj fund such as other articles which stated Hajj applicant should pay the BPIH after granted President’s and House of Representatives’ approval and appropriate with the slots determined.

 “It means, we consider that the fund obliged to be paid by Hajj applicant is the current Hajj fund, not the initial deposit of Hajj fund. Initial deposit should be voluntary. Registering Hajj is not related with paying initial deposit because basically registering on Hajj waiting list is similar with taking queue number,” he explained. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N)

---