Principal Applicant Trijono Hardjono, Ratna Sarumpet and Eka Gumilar left the plenary room after the petition revision session on Act of Legislation Establishment, on Tuesday (9/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) held further judicial review session on Act Number 12 Year 2011 of Legislation Establishment (Undang-Undang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan –UU P3) on Tuesday afternoon (9/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. The Applicant of case number 59/PUU-XIII/2015  Yudi Latief, Adhie M. Massardi, et al. felt detrimental by the Elucidation on Article 7 (1) letter b Act a quo that considered had removed formal provision which determined the Pancasila as state fundament. Trijono Hardjono represented other Applicants delivered petition revision in front of Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati.

Clarifying the legal standing, Trijono said that the Applicant were Indonesian citizens who had democracy program. The objective of the petition was the Pancasila stipulated as state fundament of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia –NKRI).

“The objective of Applicant constitutional struggle is the Pancasila stipulated as state fundament of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia,” said Trijono.

Revising the petitum, the Applicant requested to the Court to accept the petition with entire legal consideration. The Applicant also requested to the Court to declare the elucidation of Article 7 (1) letter b Act of Legislation Establishment along it related with Article 1 MPR Decree Number XVIII/MPR/1998 contrary to the 1945 Constitution and had no legal binding. In addition, the Applicant also requested to the Court to declare MPR Decree Number 1 Year 2003 inappropriate with the duty, function, and standing of the People’s Consultative Assembly (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat –MPR) as well as recommended to the MPR to immediately conduct review towards constitutional formal standing of MPR Decree Number 1 Year 2003.

Responding the revision, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati asked to the Applicant to add two petitum in the petition. “But previously should be formulated, if the petition granted in the State Gazzete and the Panel have different opinion, and then please grant fairest decision. This statement should be added,” said Maria Farida.

At previous session, the Applicant argued the elucidation of Article 7 (1) letter b Act of Legislation Establishment had made the MPR Decree number XVIII/MPR/1998 no longer in force. Whereas according to the Applicant, the stipulation of Pancasila as state fundament was noted in Article 1 MPR Decree number XVIII/MPR/1998. Therefore, the Applicant assessed formal provision which stipulated the Pancasila as state fundament had eliminated due to the elucidation of Article a quo. (Triya IR/Prasetyo Adi N)