Kartini Sitompul as principal petitioner present in the plenary session of pronunciation of decision in the judicial review case of Civil Code on Thursday (31/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) refused entirely the petition related to the regulation on loan for use in the Civil Code. The decision Number 100/PUU-XIV/2016 was read by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat in the presence of seven other Constitutional Court Justices on Thursday (31/8) at the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

In the opinion of the Court read by Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Court considered that Article 1740 of the Civil Code reviewed by the Petitioner was to regulate the loan for use agreement between parties, in this case the lender (owner of the loaned goods) and the borrower (the party using loaned goods). Wahid continued that in the context of an agreement, including in a loan agreement, it is impossible have only one party. Therefore, he continued, the phrase "the other party" in the article refers to the parties binding themselves in the agreement, not other parties outside of it. In the Petitioner\'s case, the late Gortap Sitompul was the owner of the loaned goods and the government was the borrower). 

"So, if there was a dispute concerning such a loan agreement because one of the parties committed a misconduct, the court that has jurisdiction to prosecute would be a civil court within the general court of justice," he read the petition filed by Kartini Sitompul, daughter of Gortap Sitompul, a late businessman who lent his printing press to print Republic of Indonesia Currency for Sumatra Province (ORIPS) in 1946 in Sumatra after Indonesia\'s Independence. 

Furthermore, Wahid mentioned the fact that the Petitioner’s petition in a civil court had been declared unacceptable, not because of the norm being unconstitutional, but rather that it had been a matter of jurisdiction of a court that could judge the Petitioner’s concrete case. "With regard to that matter, the Court has no authority to interfere," Wahid said. 

Therefore, Wahid continued, based on the description of the considerations above, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner’s petition was not a matter of constitutionality of norms, but of implementation of norms, as in the implementation of Article 1740 of the Civil Code. "Therefore, the Petitioner’s petition is unreasonable according to law," he said.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)