Yohanes Mahatma Pambudianto as attorney conveying the improvement of the petition in the judicial review hearing of the Supreme Court Law, Wednesday (7/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the second hearing of the judicial review of Article 31A paragraphs (1) and (4) of Law No. 3/2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 14/1985 on the Supreme Court and Article 20 paragraph (2) letter b of Law No. 48/2009 on Judicial Power on Wednesday (7/11) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

In the hearing of case No. 85/PUU-XVI/2018, Husdi Herman (Petitioner I) and Viktor Santoso Tandiasa (Petitioner II) through legal counsel Yohanes Mahatma Pambudianto submitted the revised petition in accordance with the advice of the constitutional justices at the previous hearing. In improving the petition, Yohanes emphasized that the a quo petition was not nebis in idem. Based on the provisions of Article 60 paragraphs (1) and (2) and Article 42 of the Constitutional Court Law, the constitutionality in question is different from that of case No. 30/PUU-XIII/2015. "The constitutionality is different, as the articles and petitum requested are different," explained Yohanes in the session led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo accompanied by Constitutional Justices Aswanto and I Dewa Gede Palguna. 

According to Petitioner I, the a quo norm is derived from the provision of Article 24A paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the authority to examine legislation under the law against the law. In its enforcement, it is carried out without the parties present and not open to the public even though there are no exceptions in the law. Meanwhile, Petitioner II had suffered a constitutional loss due to confusion in explaining the examination process in the judicial review hearing at the Supreme Court in accordance with the 1945 Constitution interpreted as stated in the Constitutional Court Decision No.93/PUU-XV/2017. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the provision of the a quo article not interpreted as the examination process is the hearing of the petition objecting to judicial rights be carried out in the presence of litigants in a hearing that is open to the public contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 24 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Before ending the session, Justice Suhartoyo asked the Petitioners to wait for further news on the agenda of the hearing from the Registrar\'s Office of the Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)