Ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law attended by Petitioner’s attorney, Wednesday (12/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court passed its ruling on the judicial review petition of Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court petitioned by Alungsyah, an advocate, and rejected it. “The verdict heard, declares the Petitioner’s petition cannot be accepted,” said the plenary chairman Anwar Usman in the presence of the other Constitutional Court justices on case No. 86/PUU-XVI/2018.

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 the Constitutional Court Law. 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. 

The Court believed that in relation to the Petitioner’s argument on his constitutional loss due to Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law being contrary to Article 24A of the 1945 Constitution, the Court had decided it in Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 129/PUU-VII/2009 on February 2, 2010 that reads, “Considers that if the Court reviewed the material of the article requested for review in the a quo petition, the Court would indirectly review the material in Articles 24A and 24C of the 1945 Constitution, meaning that the Court would review the constitutionality of the material of the 1945 Constitution.” Therefore, based on Article 60 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Petitioner’s petition cannot be re-filed using Article 24A of the 1945 Constitution as the basis.

In addition, according to the Court, Article 24A of the 1945 Constitution does not regulate constitutional rights as it regulates the authority of the Supreme Court at the cassation level to examine legislation under the law against laws as the Court stated in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 93/PUU-XV/2017 dated March 20, 2018 that the mechanism for review of statutory regulations is a means for the people through the judiciary to control the legal products formed by the legislators or legislation under the law. 

Thus, as conveyed by the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto who read out the opinion of the Court, it is clear that Article 24A of the 1945 Constitution, especially paragraph (1) is related to the authority of the Supreme Court and is not related to the constitutional rights of the Petitioner. Even if there is any correlation to the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights, non quod, it is the right to control the legal products formed by the legislators and that does not prevent the Petitioner from controlling legal products. 

The Court stated that even if the Petitioner acted as an advocate who defended his client as an advocate who represents his clients in relation to Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law, there was no loss of the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights as an advocate because as an advocate he could still apply for judicial review to the Supreme Court. The delay of judicial review in the Supreme Court because the law used for basis is continuously being reviewed at the Constitutional Court without any relation to the norm reviewed by the client is not a constitutional loss but a logical consequence of separation of authority of judicial review of the law against the 1945 Constitution by the Constitutional Court and the judicial review of legislation under the law by the Supreme Court. 

Case examination delay at the Supreme Court when the law being examined is being reviewed at the Constitutional Court actually provides legal certainty to maintain the integrity of the legal system. In addition, it is to avoid conflict between the Constitutional Court\'s decision, which is the basis for judicial review of the law, and the Supreme Court\'s decision. Thus, according to the Court, he Petitioner, both as an individual Indonesian citizen and an advocate, did not experience any impairment to his constitutional rights due to the enactment of the provision of Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law. 

"Because there is no loss of the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights due to the enactment of the provision of Article 55 of the Constitutional Court Law, based on the provision of Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law and Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 006/PUU-III/2005 dated May 31, 2005 and Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 11/PUU-V/2007 dated September 20, 2007 and subsequent decisions, the Petitioner does not have a legal standing to submit the a quo petition," said Justice Aswanto. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)