Petitioner\'s attorney Youngky Fernando delivering the principal points of revision of the petition for judicial review of the Agrarian Law on Monday (22/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court  Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up judicial review hearing of Article 21 paragraph (3) and Article 26 paragraph (2) of Law No. 5/1960 on Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles (Agrarian Law) on Monday (22/1). The hearing was led by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul accompanied by Constitutional Justices I Dewa Gede Palguna and Suhartoyo was held in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 101/PUU-XV/2017 was petitioned by Oltje J.K. Pesik, a housewife.

In the revision hearing, the Petitioner through her attorney, Youngky Fernando, expressed that in one of the rules of the Constitutional Court Decision, namely Decision Number 21, it reads, "Sufficient evidence comprises of at least two pieces of evidence as referred to in Article 184 Law No. 8/1981 on Criminal Procedure Law. And the status of suspects, searches, and seizures is a pre-trial object." "So, in the rule of law there is an extension to the law," Youngky said. 

In her petition, the Petitioner considered the a quo articles potentially impairing her constitutional rights especially along the phrase "by law" and "other acts which are meant to transfer the right of ownership directly or indirectly" in both articles have multiple interpretations that led to legal uncertainty for the citizen or Petitioner seeking legal truths in the Cibadak Religious Court, the Religious High Court of Bandung, and the Religious Affairs of the Supreme Court. In addition, the Petitioner also stressed that the phrase also indirectly transfers the property of the Petitioner to a foreign national. According to her, the phrase raised the question of constitutionality because the meaning of the phrase "by law" is immediately valid without further legal process.

At the end of the hearing, Justice Manahan authorized the evidence from the Petitioner and stated that the Petitioner could wait for further news of the hearing through the Registrar\'s Office. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)