Legal counsel Hermawanto in the revision hearing of the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law, Tuesday (6/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The second hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court registered as case No. 86/PUU-XVI/2018 was held by the Constitutional Court on Tuesday afternoon (6/11). The agenda was to hear the petition revision. The session was chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul accompanied by Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Arief Hidayat. 

"All right, Mr. Hermawanto, who was given power of attorney starting November 1, 2018. At the first hearing, you had not been given authority? I haven\'t seen your name. Even so, in the petition revision there already is [your] signature. So, we consider [you] eligible to be present today. In accordance with the schedule, [we give the Petitioner\'s attorney the floor] to convey the things that are revised in this petition," said Justice Manahan. 

"My apologies, Your Honor, incidentally, the documents were brought by our staff in the office. We do not bring [it] with us today, Your Honor, because it hasn\'t arrived yet. [Please accept our sincere] apologies," said the Petitioner\'s attorney, Hermawanto. 

Chairman of the panel, Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul, confirmed that the panel of justices was guided by the improvement of the petition at the previous hearing in accordance with the grace period that had been given up to November 2, 2018. 

"This is not a problem. We now accept this revision and this is what will become our guideline. This revision is considered to have been read. Next, we will bring it to the Justices\' Deliberation Meeting. The continuation of this petition, whether it is forwarded to the plenary session or not, later the meeting will decide," he explained. 

The Petitioner, Alungsyah, argued that the norm in the Constitutional Court Law have caused legal uncertainty. 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.”

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 Petitioner believes that 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. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)