Hafidz as Principal Petitioner delivering the principal points of petition revision for the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law on Monday (18/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The revision hearing of the petition for the judicial review of Law No. 8/2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court was held on Monday (18/9). The hearing petitioned by an Indonesian citizen, Muhammad Hafidz, was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on case No. 57/PUU-XV/2017.

In the revision hearing, Hafidz said that he added the article to review, namely Article 59 paragraph (2), which reads "If necessary changes to the laws that have been reviewed, the House of Representatives or the President immediately follows up the decision of the Constitutional Court as referred to in paragraph (1) according to the laws and regulations."

In the preliminary hearing, The Petitioner argued that the Article 57 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Law had the potential to violate his constitutional rights because, according to him, there is the potential for delay in the relevant parties’ follow up on the decision of the Constitutional Court in a case, potentially leading to legal vacuum. The Petitioner felt the need to add the review material, namely Article 59 paragraph (2) along the phrase "If necessary…" because, according to the Petitioner, the article proved unreasonable under the law and contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force.

Hafidz insisted that the added article would potentially impair his constitutional rights. Therefore, if the Petitioner employment was terminated and had industrial relations dispute, he is potentially disadvantaged by the loss of some rights that have been protected by a Constitutional Court decision, due to delay of changes in legislation to follow the Constitutional Court\'s decision. Accordingly, if the provisions of the aforementioned article are not declared constitutionally conditional, it may potentially impair the constitutional rights of the Petitioner.

"Thus, the potential constitutional impairment posed by the a quo article shows disharmony with the Constitutional Court\'s decision. The final nature of the Constitutional Court\'s decision not only applies to the parties requesting the judicial review, but for all Indonesians or erga omnes and moreover, the Court\'s decision by law enforcement is considered as law in abstracto that cannot be applied to a case in society or law in concreto," Hafidz explained before Constitutional Justices Maria Farida Indrati, Manahan M.P. Sitompul, and Wahiduddin Adams.

Hafidz also added that in Article 59 paragraph (2) along the phrase "if necessary" also meant that the Constitutional Court\'s decision may be considered unnecessary to be followed up, which ultimately results in many non-executable decisions.

"Therefore, in order to avoid any arbitrariness of the follow up of the Constitutional Court\'s decision, in particular reinterpretation, to implement the decision of the Constitutional Court and to provide protection and legal certainty, the Government may issue legislation under the law in accordance with the order and hierarchy of legislation to follow up the Constitutional Court\'s decision whose content is in common with the decision of the Constitutional Court," Hafidz continued in the petition revision session. (Sri Pujianti/Yuniar Widiastuti)