Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin Adams reading the opinion of the Court in ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Regional Government Law and the Supreme Court Law on Thursday (14/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Petition of Forum of Legal and Constitutional Studies (FKHK) requesting the judicial review of Law No. 23/2014 on the Regional Government and Law No. 5/2004 on the Supreme Court was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK).

"The verdict heard, declared the Petitioner’s petition concerning Article 251 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4) of the Regional Government Law unacceptable. Rejected the Petitioner\'s petition entirely," said Chief Justice Arief Hidayat accompanied by the other constitutional judges in court ruling on Thursday afternoon (14/12).

In the Case No. 66/PUU-XIV/2016, the Court is of the opinion that the Regional Regulation (Perda) is placed hierarchically under several laws and regulations, so that the Perda is established on the basis of attribution or delegation of regulation of statutory regulations under the law. It is therefore impossible for the local regulation to be reviewed only by law.

"Therefore, it is also imperative to open the door to judicial review of Perda against other legislations higher in hierarchy. Thus, as long as the hierarchical position of the law is placed under certain types of legislation other than the law, it cannot be assumed that the review of the Perda against higher legislations other than the law is mandatory. In fact, the absence of such mechanisms will lead to legal uncertainty in terms of local regulations that are contrary to higher legislations," said Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, who read the Court\'s opinion.

According to the Court, if it can then be interpreted that Perda cannot be reviewed against other laws and regulations that are higher than the Perda, this becomes a question. Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution does not regulate it. Therefore, review of legislation lower than the law is not prohibited.

The Court is of the opinion that if the provisions of Article 31 paragraph (2) of the Supreme Court Law are read further, the norm does not close the door to the review of Perda against the law. By using the phrase "higher legislations," a Perda may be reviewed directly by law, or it may be reviewed against a Government Regulation or Presidential Regulation.

"This means the a quo norm does not actually eliminate the substance desired by Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, but only adds the authority of the review to the Supreme Court, that is to review laws and regulations under the law against higher laws and regulations of which positions are still under the law. Constitutionally, the 1945 Constitution justifies other authorities for the Supreme Court as long as they are granted by law," Justice Wahiduddin said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)