Ferdinand Halomoan Lebang Tobing as Principal Petitioner after judicial review hearing of the Press Law on Monday (16/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) again held a follow-up hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 40/1999 on the Press (Press Law) on Monday (16/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Ferdinand Halomoan Lumbang Tobing 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. 

In the second hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Petitioner submitted several points of revision, including the addition of articles as reference, that is, Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D, and Article 28I of the 1945 Constitution, as well as included the position of director in the organizational structure of the firm and strengthened the definition of a firm as a legal entity and a business entity according to experts. "Based on Article 28I, we feel discriminatory treatment with the enforcement of this Press Law it only recognizes legal entities, while under Article 9 paragraph (1) [of the Constitution], every citizen has the right to establish a press company," Ferdinand explained. 

In addition, in relation to his position as director of a publishing company, Ferdinand also added an explanation of his legal standing as someone who has the authority to act on behalf of his company in filing the case No. 51/PUU-XVI/2018. 

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 requested that the Panel of Justices declare the a quo article contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)