---

Applicant Fathul Hadie Utsman (left) after receive verdict copy of judicial review on Act of Hajj Finance Management, on Tuesday (20/10), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) declares reject entire petition on Act Number 34 Year 2014 of Hajj Finance Management and Act Number 13 Year 2008 of Hajj Pilgrimage. As known, two Hajj applicants Sumilatun and JN Raisal Haq file the petition which registered in Case Number 12 and 13/PUU-XIII/2015.

“Judicial Verdict, adjudicates, declares reject Applicants’ petition in its entirely,” said Chief Justice Arief Hidayat reading Court Verdict accompanied by seven Constitutional Justices, on Tuesday (20/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

Both Sumilatun and JN Raisal Haq file two petitions. In petition registered in Case Number 12/PUU-XIII/2015, the Applicants consider detrimental by Article 6 (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5); Article 8 (1) and (2); Article 12 (1), (2), (3); and Article 50 Act of Hajj Finance Management. Whereas in Case Number 13/PUU-XIII/2015, the Applicants consider detrimental by Article 4 (1), Article 5, Article 23 (2), Article 30 (1) Act of Hajj Pilgrimage. After the Court examines Articles reviewed, the Court assesses there are close connection between Articles reviewed in both petitions, except Article 50 Act of Hajj Finance Management. Therefore, the Court merges both petitions.

Regarding petition points, the Court argues that Hajj finance management aimed at improving rationality and efficiency of Hajj fee (Biaya Penyelenggaraan Ibadah Haji –BPIH) and its benefit for Muslims in Indonesia. Thus, the management is divided into revenue, expenditure, and wealth. Considering the high cost of Hajj, the Court assesses that the Government already appropriate on issuing regulations as stipulated in Act of Hajj Finance Management, particularly regarding Hajj fee deposit (setoran BPIH).

“Hajj fee ownernership and Hajj finance management are already explicitly regulated in Act Number 34 Year 2014. Therefore, it provides legal certainty that Hajj fee initial deposit is owned by respective Hajj applicant and Hajj fee benefit of waiting-list applicants is represented to the Hajj Finance Management Agency (Badan Pengelola Keuangan Haji –BPKH),” said Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reading Court’s Opinion in Verdict Number 12/PUU-XIII/2015.

Therefore according to the Court, Hajj fee initial deposit and Hajj fee benefit that transferred to the BPKH are not regarded as hostile takeover. The Court assesses such regulation is indeed provide legal certainty and protection to Hajj applicants, in order to implement controllable management.

Regarding Hajj Pilgrimage, the Court argues that Hajj Pilgrimage needs to be managed professionally and accountable by prioritizing Hajj applicants’ interests. “In order to ensure fair, professional, and accountable Hajj Pilgrimage management, an independent monitoring agency needs to conduct monitoring and supervision on Hajj Pilgrimage and provides consideration to improve Hajj Pilgrimage management,” said Deputy Chief Anwar Usman reading Court’s Opinion in Verdict Number 13/PUU-XIII/2015.

In order to improve Hajj Pilgrimage management, guidance and protection need to be implemented from the beginning of registration. “Hajj guidance needs to be implemented to Hajj applicants. Hajj services are implemented in form of administration service, transportation service, health service, hospitality service and logistic service. Hajj protections are implemented in form of safety and security guarantee to Hajj applicants during conduct Hajj Pilgrimage,” said Anwar.

Based on above considerations, the Court argues that professional and accountable Hajj management is not considered as hostile takeover.

Previously, the Applicants argue that initial deposit of Hajj fee and its benefit are owned by waiting-list Hajj applicants that shall not be controlled by anyone and shall return to each respective applicant. They also consider detrimental because the initial deposit using Rupiah rate, while payment completion in current year using Dollar rate. They consider suffer loss during Rupiah exchange rate shrink, because they must pay the fee more.

The Applicants also argue that Hajj slots are very limited, so that Hajj applicants who never conduct Hajj shall be prioritized. According them, recent Hajj management system doesn’t allow young people to conduct Hajj.

The Applicants further argue that the provision which obliged Hajj applicants to pay initial deposit is very burdensome for Hajj applicants. According to the Applicants, the initial deposit is not guaranteed from Rupiah rate shrinking and cause Hajj applicants still have to add payment that determined by the Government, without any calculation and additional benefits. Thus, the Applicants consider such condition cause legal uncertainty. (Panji Erawan/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---