---

Donny Christian Langgar as Principal Petitioner attending the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Supreme Court Law, Tuesday (19/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The judicial review hearing of Article 69 of Law No. 3/2009 on the Supreme Court was held by the Constitutional Court (MK), Tuesday (19/9). The Petitioner of the case No. 69/PUU-XV/2017 is Donny Christian Langgar, an air conditioner technician.

The Petitioner reviews the provisions of Article 69 of the Supreme Court Law that set the time limit of judicial review, which is 180 days. The Petitioner expects that the Constitutional Court interpret the deliberation provision related to the article so that the litigants would not have to file a petition for a judicial review and resolve it through deliberation.

Article 69 of the Supreme Court Law reads:

“The stay for filing of judicial review based on reason as referred to in Article 67 shall be 180 (one hundred and eighty) days for:

a. Those mentioned in item a since the lie or deception is known or since the judgment of the Judge for criminal case is absolute, and already notified to the disputing parties;

b. That as referred to in item b since the exhibits are found, that day as well as the date of the finding shall be declared under oath and approved by the competent officials;

c. That as referred to in item c, d, and f as of the judgment is absolute and already notified to the disputing parties;

d. That is mentioned in item e since the final and contradictory judgment is absolute and already notified to the disputing parties.

Donny said that he was denied participation in the development of the national law because of the enactment of the a quo article. In addition, he also feels restricted from improving quality of life because he cannot exercise the law through public courts to escape poverty. The Petitioner claimed to have been a litigant in the Supreme Court (MA) and has received verdict No. 151/E/05/979 K/PDT/04. However, the Petitioner did not explain the details of his case.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the request, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra who presided over the hearing gave advice on three matters of the petition. First, the Constitutional Court does not examine concrete cases. "The Constitutional Court reviews the norms of the law against the 1945 Constitution. Concrete cases can be used but only as introduction into the norms of the law," he said.

Secondly, Justice Saldi had not found actual constitutional impairment suffered by the Petitioner and how part of the law had harmed the Applicant. "This needs to be clarified," he said.

Thirdly, Justice Saldi observed that the Petitioner’s petition format was still far from perfect. Therefore, he asked the Petitioner to revise it based on existing petitions in the Constitutional Court.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati asserted the Constitutional Court does not handle concrete cases. She explained that the Court can only hear the norm in a law. "Things that can be resolved by the Constitutional Court are, for example, articles, paragraphs, or norms in the law contradicting the Constitution," he explained.

Justice Maria also asked to describe the constitutional impairment more. If it is unclear, the legal standing becomes invalid, which means that the petition cannot proceed to the next hearing.

"Perhaps this is based on a concrete case that the Petitioner has filed in court. Furthermore, the court did not meet your wishes and you felt disadvantaged. Well, that should be formulated clearly because perhaps you could file a judicial review based on the concrete case," he said. (ARS/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---