Ferdinand Halomoan Lebang Tobing as Principal Petitioner delivering the principal points of the petition for judicial review of the Press Law, Tuesday (3/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Ferdinand Halomoan Lumbang Tobing, a press publishing entrepreneur filed a judicial review of Law No. 40/1999 on the Press (Press Law) on Tuesday (3/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In case No. 51/PUU-XVI/2018, Ferdinand as Director of CV Swara Rishi felt that his constitutional rights had been impaired by the enactment of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 9 paragraph (2), and Article 18 paragraph (2) of the Press Law.

The Petitioner claimed that the a quo articles had reduced his constitutional right to do business as guaranteed in Article 33 paragraphs (1) and (4) and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. The a quo provision is also deemed to have imposed restrictions on business entities (such as CV) that are not classified as legal entities to manage the press business in searching, obtaining, possessing, storing, processing, and disseminating public information. In addition, Ferdinand added, the a quo articles had eliminated the economic rights of business entities.

According to Ferdinand, the Circular Letter of the Press Council No. 01/E-DP/I/2014 on the Implementation of Press Law and the Standards of Press Companies that was issued 15 years after the Press Law was enacted, does not provide legal protection for journalistic works during reporting and publishing of both printed and electronic news as an independent press.

"Therefore, the Petitioner considered the a quo article impairing the constitutional right to work collectively with the principle of kinship and causing great injustice in conducting the press business," said Ferdinand before the hearing presided over by Constitutional Court Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul in the presence of Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Suhartoyo.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Panel of Justices declare the a quo article contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force.

Legal Standing

In response to the Petitioner\'s petition, Constitutional Court Manahan advised the Petitioner to explain his legal standing as director of CV Swara Rishi. "So based on the deed of establishment of CV Swara Resi, is your position as director entitles you to file the petition? Do you have the right to take external measures, that is to the Constitutional Court? Please explain part of the notarial deed highlighting this," Justice Manahan advised.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat saw the need for the Petitioner to explain the part in the posita related to the definition of legal entities and business entities in the concept of Indonesian press companies. "In the posita you need to define what a legal company may be. Is a CV a legal entity or a business entity? This is necessary because it will be related to whether this is a matter of constitution or implementation. And then your explanation might convince us to conduct further study," he explained.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Manahan reminded the Petitioner to submit the petition revision no later than July 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to schedule the next hearing after the petition is revised and submitted to the Court\'s Registrar. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)