Eep Ependi as the attorney of the Petitioner when submitting the principal of the petition revision for judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law on Monday (11/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a second trial of judicial review of Article 55 of Law No. 8/2011 on the Constitutional Court, Monday (11/12). The hearing of Case No. 93/PUU-XV/2017 was to listen to the petition revision.

The Petitioners’ attorney Eep Ependi explained four points of the revision. First, his clients had strengthened the argument on legal standing along with additional pieces of evidence proving the the Petitioners’ track record in the industrial relations dispute settlement, the Supreme Court (MA), and the Constitutional Court (MK).

"In addition, the Petitioners also revised the argument of potential losses by considering the previous decisions filed by other parties in the Supreme Court," he explained in the session led by Justice Manahan MP Sitompul.

Furthermore, Eep explained his clients also emphasize the word \'discontinued\' in Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law. The Petitioners assume that the meaning of the word \'discontinued\' in the judicial review of legislation under the law in the Supreme Court does not immediately mean discontinued because the law on which the review is based on is still being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, but is postponed until the Constitutional Court\'s decision. "If it is directly discontinued, the Petitioners would experience complicated judicial process, not as soon as possible, and the cost incurred in seeking justice becomes high because there is a case fee," he explained.

Furthermore, the Petitioners consider their petition cannot be qualified (nebis in idem), either with Case No. 74/2012 dated March 13, 2013 because of a different petitum, or with Case No. 79/2017 because of different argument of constitutionality.

"Lastly, we also revised the petitum where the word “discontinued” in Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law must be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as \'review of legislation under the law\' undertaken by the Supreme Court is being adjourned pending its review if the law on which the regulation is reviewed is in being reviewed by the Constitutional Court until a decision of the Constitutional Court is made," he said.

Three factory workers filed a judicial review of Article 55 of Law No. 8/2011 on the Constitutional Court where the Supreme Court cannot examine a government regulation (PP) if the law on which the regulation is based is being reviewed materially in the Constitutional Court. The Petitioners are Abda Kahir Mufti, Muhammad Hafidz, and Abdul Hakim. The Petitioners intend to review Article 44 of the Government Regulation No. 78/2015 on Remuneration against Law No. 13/2013 on Employment to the Supreme Court. However, based on similar decisions, the Petitioners feel the petition would similarly be rejected by the Supreme Court. The Petitioners explained that the Supreme Court had decided on of the Government Regulation No. 78/2015 and rejected it because its basis, Law No. 13/2013 was being reviewed at the Constitutional Court. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)