Head of the Central Executive Board of the Indonesian Maritime Axis Movement Barharudin Farawowan and Deputy Secretary General of the Central Executive Board of Geomaritime for Law and Cooperation Between Institutions Alfian Akbar Balyanan as Petitioners attending the petition revision hearing of judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2016 on the Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Raisers, and Salt Farmers, Monday (30/4) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The judicial review of Law No. 7/2016 on the Law on the Protection and Empowerment of Fishermen, Fish Fishermen, Fish Raisers, and Salt Farmers was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (30/4) afternoon with to hear the revision of the petition. 

Head of the Central Executive Board of the Indonesian Maritime Axis Movement Barharudin Farawowan as Petitioner directly submitted the petition revision to the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Court Justice M. P. Sitompul. He said he had improved his legal standing according to the advice of the panel of justices in the previous session. 

"In accordance with the previous session, the Panel of Justices gave advice to the Petitioners. At this hearing we have revised the legal standing of the Central Executive Board of the Indonesian Maritime Axis Movement, in this case the chairman and secretary general," Barharudin said of the case No. 32/PUU-XVI/2018. 

Meanwhile, another applicant, Deputy Secretary General of the Central Executive Board of Geomaritime for Law and Cooperation Between Institutions Alfian Akbar Balyanan, explained that there were improvements on the systematic of petition. "So previously constitutional damage [was put] after the principal points of the petition, but in this revision we combine it with the legal standing," said Alfian. 

The Petitioners review Article 37 paragraph (3) of Law No. 7/2016 that reads,"In case of fisheries commodity and salt commodity imports, the relevant minister shall receive a recommendation from the minister." 

Petitioners said that the phrase "fisheries commodity and salt commodity" stipulated in the a quo law is multi-interpretive that could potentially cause problem in its implementation. According to the Petitioners, in addition to being used for direct consumption of the public, salt can also be used as raw material or auxiliary materials in the industrial world. 

Related to that, the Petitioners saw disharmony between the data used by the Minister of Industry and Minister of Marine and Fisheries to import salt commodities. As a result of the disharmony, the Petitioners argued that the domestic industry experienced a shortage of salt supply. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the a quo article be declared contradictory to Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution and that it be revoked. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)