Ruling hearing of judicial review on the Supreme Court Law, Thursday (26/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the judicial review of Article 69 of Law No. 3/2009 on the Supreme Court (MA), Thursday (26/10). The judges viewed the Case No. 69/PUU-XV/2017 ambiguous. "Declares cannot accept the Petitioner\'s Petition," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat in the presence of the other constitutional justices.

The Petitioner Donny Christian Langgar reviewed the provisions of Article 69 of the Supreme Court Law that set the time limitation 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.

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.

In the opinion read by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, in the initial petition filed by the Petitioner, the Court did not find any elaboration and/or legal argument on the contradiction between the provisions petitioned for review and the norms of the 1945 Constitution. Justice Saldi explained that after the panel of justices gave advice for revision in the preliminary hearing on September 19, 2017, the Petitioner submitted revision to the petition but there was still no significant change in the elaboration and/or legal argument. Similarly, in the second hearing on October 3, 2017 scheduled to examine the petition revision, the Petitioner could not explain to the panel of justices the unconstitutionality of Article 69 of the Supreme Court Law.

"The ambiguity of the petition as described above resulted in the find that there is no correlation between the petitum and the legal argument in the posita. Furthermore, the Court cannot understand the Petitioners petitum. Based on that consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner’s petition, especially the principal part of the petition which covers posita and petitum, must be declared ambiguous," he said. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)