Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman reading the decision on the material review of the Construction Services Law, on Thursday (28/6) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) granted the withdrawal of the petition for judicial review of Law No. 2/2017 on Construction Services. The Constitutional Court\'s decision was read out by the Plenary Chairman Justice Anwar Usman in the ruling hearing on Thursday (28/6) afternoon. "Decides, grants the withdrawal of the petition of the Petitioners," said Justice Anwar in the presence of the other constitutional justices. 

Justice Anwar said that the Court had conducted a preliminary hearing on the petition through a panel session on June 6, 2018 and, in accordance with Article 39 of Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court as amended by Law No. 8/2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court Law), the Panel of Justices of the Constitutional Court had advised the Petitioners to revise their petition. 

Subsequently, the Court had received a letter of withdrawal from the Petitioners dated June 19, 2018 regarding the withdrawal of the petition for the judicial review of Article 84 paragraphs (2) and (5) of Law No. 2/2017 on Construction Services against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, received by the Registrar\'s Office of the Court on June 21, 2018. 

The withdrawal of the aforementioned petition has been reaffirmed by the statement of the Petitioners’ legal counsel in the petition revision hearing on June 26, 2018. Article 35 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law reads "The Petitioner may withdraw his/her petition before or during the examination thereof by the Constitutional Court" and "Withdrawal as referred to in paragraph (1) means that the petition may not be filed again." 

With respect to the request for withdrawal, the Consultative Meeting of Justice (RPH) on June 26, 2018 determined that the withdrawal of Case No. 44/PUU-XVI/2018 is reasonable according to law. 

The Petitioners, represented by Andi Muhammad Asrun, reviewed Article 84 paragraphs (2) and (5) of the Construction Services Law. They are individual citizens as intended in Article 51 paragraph (1) of Law No. 24/2003, who are at the board of the provincial Construction Development Agency in several regions. The Petitioners argued that the construction development agency, as stated in the public law, was formed with the legal basis of Law No. 18/1999 on Construction Services, Government Regulation No. 28/2000 on Business and the Role of Construction Services Society, and Government Regulation No. 4/2010 on Business and the Role of Construction Services Society.

According to the Petitioners, the provision of Article 84 paragraphs (2) and (5) of the Construction Services Law have given rise to uncertain future of the existence of the Construction Development Agency (LPJK) in the provinces. The a quo article may also lead to the potential loss of office assets, vehicles, finances, and information systems of construction services derived from private funding, as well as human resources, which could lead to the possibility of takeover of office assets, vehicles, finances, and information systems of construction services by the government after the establishment of the national LPJK representative that differs from the provincial LPJK. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)