---

Panel preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law, Wednesday (24/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Preliminary hearing of material review of Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court for case No. 86/PUU-XVI/2018 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday afternoon (24/10). The Petitioner is Alungsyah, represented by his legal counsel Iqbal Tawakal Pasaribu. 

"The norms in the Constitutional Court Law have caused legal uncertainty," said Iqbal to Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto as chairman of the hearing, who was accompanied Constitutional Justices Manahan M.P. Sitompul and Wahiduddin Adams. 

The Petitioner, who works as an advocate, reviews Article 55 of Law No. 24/2003 that reads, “Review of legislation under the law, which is being undertaken by the Supreme Court, must be discontinued, if the law which constitutes the basis for review of such legislation is being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, until such time as may be determined by the Constitutional Court.” 

Iqbal explained, the Petitioner had submitted a material review to the Supreme Court, but it had to be postponed on the basis of the interpretation of the phrase "the law which constitutes the basis for review of such legislation" in the a quo article. The phrase leaves a constitutionality issue because it does not provide legal certainty for justice seekers who file for material reviews to the Supreme Court. 

"The constitutionality issue arose from the a quo norm when the interpretation of the phrase \'the law which constitutes the basis for review of such legislation\' in the a quo norm is interpreted as a sufficient reason to delay without regard to its relevance, article, paragraph, and/or any content the law," explained Iqbal. 

The Petitioner considers the norm currently being filed by the Petitioner to the Supreme Court related to the norm being reviewed at the Constitutional Court. Therefore, the delay was deemed to have been detrimental. In addition, the Petitioner argued that he had different constitutional reasons or were not nebis in idem. This can be observed in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 74/PUU-X/2012, which basically states that the Petitioner\'s petition was rejected, because the argument stating that Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law contradicts Article 24 and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution is not reasonable according to law. 

The Petitioner also referred to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 79/PUU-XV/2017 that rejected the petition, because the Petitioner\'s argument requested that the norm of Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law be added with the phrase "that binds the Supreme Court" so that the norm becomes "Review of legislation under the law, which is being undertaken by the Supreme Court, must be discontinued, if the law which constitutes the basis for review of such legislation is being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, until such time as may be determined by the Constitutional Court decision that binds the Supreme Court." 

The Petitioner also referred to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 93/PUU-XVI/2017 that granted the petition entirely. The Petitioner requested that the word "terminated" in the norm of Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law be declared conditionally constitutional as to be interpreted as "be discontinued" on the grounds that it provided legal certainty to the process of reviewing legislation under the law against the law. 

Legal Uncertainty 

Responding to the arguments presented by the Petitioner, Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto as chairman of the session highlighted the Petitioner\'s description of legal uncertainty in the petition. "In my opinion, legal uncertainty needs to be elaborated so [it is obvious] that legal uncertainty is what causes the specific losses. This is what I think needs to be [revised]," he added. 

Meanwhile Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams requested the reason why the Petitioner had acted as an individual but then gave power to the law firm where he worked. "Why doesn\'t the law firm where the Petitioner works act as petitioner? The loss might be clearer, even though the Court must also judge later, whether the loss is constitutional or not," he said. 

Justice Wahiduddin also observed the fact that the Petitioner had often filed for material review to the Supreme Court by bringing Exhibit P-7. "The panel needs to confirm whether the Petitioner has ever been rejected in terms of materal rights case at the Supreme Court because of Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law. Has he ever? Even though it is a matter implementation," he said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---