---

Muhammad Sholeh explained the revision of his petition in the judicial review hearing of Law 34 of 2014 on Hajj Funds Management, Monday (11/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court. Photo PR/Ifa.

Muhammad Sholeh, one of the hajj pilgrim candidates who review the hajj funds investment regulation in Law 34 of 2014 on Hajj Funds Management revised his petition. The second hearing of case Number 51/PUU-XV/2017 was held on Monday (11/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

In his petition revision, Sholeh, who was present without a legal counsel, explained that he had revised the petition, especially the arguments. According to him, Article 24 letter a, Article 46, and Article 48 of the Hajj Funds Management Law contains legal uncertainty resulting in no legal protection for him. He considered hajj funds investment not providing legal protection.

"This fact reinforces the argument that the law reviewed by the Petitioner does not provide legal protection. Supposedly, funds amounting close to Rp100 trillion should not be for investment only, but also provide bailout funds to prospective hajj pilgrims who at the time of payment could not settle the rest of the fund," he read a plea before the Panel of Justices led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Sholeh argued that his constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of three articles: Article 24 letter a, Article 46 paragraph (2), and Article 48 paragraph (2) of the Hajj Funds Management Law.

Article 24 letter a

"In performing its duties as referred to in Article 22, the Hajj Fund Management Agency (BPKH) is authorized to: a. collect and invest Hajj Funds in accordance with sharia principles, prudence, security, and value of benefits."

Article 46 paragraph (2)

"(2) Hajj Funds as referred to in paragraph (1) may be collected and/or invested."

Article 48 paragraph (2)

“(2) The collection and/or investment of Hajj Funds as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be conducted in accordance with sharia principles by considering the aspects of security, prudence, value of benefits, and liquidity."

The Petitioner registered as a hajj pilgrim candidate at the Office of Ministry of Religious Affairs in Sidoarjo, East Java by depositing Rp20 million funds on February 13, 2008. However, the Petitioner never received explanation whether the deposited fund would be invested. According to the Petitioner, it would violate his constitutional rights if his hajj fund was used for investment without approval. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Panel of Judges cancel the enforceability of the three articles.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---