---

Commission III member I Putu Sudiartana represented thed House of Representatives walked to the podium to deliver testimony, on Thursday (25/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) held further session on Act Number 12 Year 2011 of Legislation Establishment (Undang-Undang Peraturan Perundang-undangan –UU P3) on agenda hearing House of Representatives’ and Government’s testimony on Thursday (25/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. At the session registered with number 59/PUU-XIII/2015, Commission III member I Putu Sudiartana represented the House of Representatives delivered its testimony. Government’s testimony delivered by Justice and Human Rights Minister’s Expert Staff Agus Haryadi.

Answering the petition points, Sudiartana explained that Pancasila as basic source of entire State law and State fundament was already clear and explicitly stated in Article 2 Act of Legislation Establishment. According to him, the provision had already placed the Pancasila as State fundament and ideology as well as State philosophical fundament. Therefore, entire contain of legislation should not contrary to Pancasila values. “Therefore, the statement that Pancasila is State fundament had manifested in legislation,” Sudiartana added.

Meanwhile, Agus Haryadi questioned Applicant’s legal standing. According to Agus, no Applicant’s constitutional rights violated by the enactment of Act a quo. The Applicant also didn’t hampered and reduced their constitutional rights. Therefore, the Government argued the Applicant didn’t met qualification as the party who had legal standing.

Related to petition points, Agus said People’s Consultative Assembly Decree (Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat –TAP MPR) Number XVIII/MPR/1998 was a decree which didn’t require any further legal action, because it was final (einmalig), had revoked, and had completed. Agus added the decree was a constitutional policy defined by the People’s Consultative Assembly Decree (Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat).

“Because in accordance with the provision on Article 6 which stated no require any further legal action, due to it is final, has revoked, and has completed, (the Decree, red) is a constitutional policy defined by the MPR after an assertion that the Pancasila declared as State fundament,” Agus said in front of Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

In addition, Agus explained Act of Legislation Establishment had asserted the Pancasila as State fundament, ideology, and philosophy. It was later formulated in the provision on Article 2 Act of Legislation Establishment and its elucidation. By the Pancasila stipulation as State fundament, ideology, as well as philosophy basis, each material contained in the legislation should not contrary to Pancasila values.

Moreover regarding on Applicant’s willingness to revive the appreciation and implementation guidelines of the Pancasila or Eka Prasetya Pancakarsa, according to Agus, it could be done through discussion in the MPR session, instead of in the Constitutional Court. It was because the MPR had authority to decide MPR Decree. The Constitutional Court was a judicial institution who authorized to conduct judicial review concerning on Act towards the 1945 Constitution, instead of conduct review on MPR Decree. Based on the argumentation above, the Government requested to the Justice Panel to reject Applicant’s petition in its entirely.

“Declaring the Applicant has no legal standing. The second is rejecting Applicant’s petition in its entirely or at least declaring Applicant’s petition cannot be accepted or niet ontvankelijke verklaard. The third is, accepting President’s testimony in its entirely. The fourth is, declaring the elucidation of Article 7 (1) letter b Act Number 12 Year 2011 of Legislation Establishment is not contrary to fourth paragraph, Article 22A and Article 1 additional rules of the 1945 Constitution,” Agus said.

Previously the petition which registered with number 59/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by Indonesian citizens who had democracy program Yudi Latief, Adhie M. Massardi, et al. The objective of the program was the Pancasila stipulated as State fundament. The Applicant felt detrimental because the elucidation of Article 7 (1) letter b Act of Legislation Establishment had removed formal provision which stipulated the Pancasila as State fundament.

The elucidation of Article 7 (1) letter b Act of Legislation Establishment stated:

"People\\'s Consultative Assembly Decree is the Provisional People\\'s Consultative Assembly Decree and valid People\\'s Consultative Assembly Decree as stipulated in Article 2 and Article 4 People\\'s Consultative Assembly Decree of the Republic of Indonesia Number I/MPR/2003 of Review On Matter and Legal Status of Temporary People’s Consultative Assembly Decree and People\\'s Consultative Assembly Decree Year 1960 up to Year 2002, dated August 7, 2003.”

(“Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat adalah Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara dan Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat yang masih berlaku sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 2 dan Pasal 4 Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Republik Indonesia Nomor: I/MPR/2003 tentang Peninjauan Terhadap Materi dan Status Hukum Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Sementara dan Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat Tahun 1960 sampai dengan Tahun 2002, tanggal 7 Agustus 2003.”)

According to the Applicant, it could be occurred because the material contain on MPR Decree Number I/MPR/2003, particularly on Article 6 number 91 had placed MPR Decree Number XVIII/MPR/1998 as the decree which didn’t required any further legal action, because it was final, had revoked, and had completed. However, the stipulation of Pancasila as State fundament stated in Article 1 MPR Decree Number XVIII/MPR/1998. Therefore, the Applicant assessed formal provision which stipulated Pancasila as State fundament had removed due to the elucidation of Article 7 (1) letter b Act of Legislation Establishment. (Triya IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---