The Principal Petitioners present at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Regional Government Law on Thursday (19/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided not to accept the material judicial review of Article 35 paragraph (4) letter a of Law No. 23/2014 on Regional Government, Thursday (19/10) afternoon. Case No. 34/PUU-XV/2017 is considered unreasonable under the law and the Petitioners have no legal standing.

"The petition of Petitioners I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X are unacceptable. In addition, [the Court] rejects the Petitioner XI\\'s petition entirely," said Chief Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the verdict in the presence of the eight other justices.

Previously, the petition No. 34/PUU-XV/2017 in relation to the establishment of Madura Province. Article 34 paragraph (2) letter d and Article 35 paragraph (4) letter a of the Regional Government Law being reviewed were claimed by the Petitioners to keep Madura from becoming a province because the articles require at least five districts/municipalities for the establishment of a new province.

The Petitioners are regional heads in several areas, namely Bangkalan Regent Muhammad Makmun, Sampang Deputy Regent Fadhilah Budiono, Pamekasan Regent Achmad Syafii, and Sumenep Regent Busyro Karim as Petitioner I. In addition, the Petitioner I also consists of the Heads of the Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) of a number of districts, that is, Imron Rosyadi from Bangkalan District, Imam Ubaidillah from Sampang District, Halili from Pamekasan District, and Herman Dali Kusuma from Sumenep District. Petitioner II are Chairman of the Madura Cleric Alliance (AUMA) Ali Karrar Shinhaji, Secretary General of the Association of Pesantren-Based Ulama in Madura (Bassra) Nurudin A. Rachman, as well as Chairman of the Madura Province Establishment Preparatory Committee Achmad Zaini.

In the opinion of the Court read by Constitutional Court Justice Aswanto, the Court stated that the condition of at least 5 (five) districts/municipalities is not regulated and limited by Article 18 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. This, Justice Aswanto continued, is entirely the legislator\\'s authority. Constitutional norms implying an open legal policy cannot be declared contrary to the constitution, provided that the norm does not violate morality, rationality, nor is it intolerance that is intolerable and does not extend beyond the legislator\\'s powers. In addition, as long as the norm is not related to the abuse of authority, does not negate the principles of the 1945 Constitution, is not contrary to political rights, is not contrary to the sovereignty of the people, and is not done arbitrarily, it is not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.

"Therefore, no matter how many criteria are used as conditions of territorial coverage (capacity requirement) as regulated in Article 35 paragraph (4) letter a of the Regional Government Law, the cannot be judged contradictory to Article 18 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," he explained.

In addition, Justice Aswanto asserted the Constitutional Court will not assess or review the regional potentials and capacity of Madura Island, whether it may be a separate province. That is because it is a concrete issue of the implementation of the law and therefore it is not the authority of the Constitutional Court to review it. “The Constitutional Court will only judge and try the constitutionality of an a quo article. There will be no specific assessment of the proposed establishment of Madura Province as described in the Petitioners\\' petition," he said. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)