Paustinus Siburian as attorney for the Petitioner delivering the subjects of the petition for the judicial review of the Law on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH), Wednesday (30/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Provision on the definition of halal product as stipulated in Law No. 33/2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH) was re-petitioned for judicial review at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (30/1/2019) afternoon. Paustinus Siburian, legal consultant on halal products, was registered as Petitioner No. 8/PUU-XVII/2019. He requested the judicial review of the dictum of the consideration of letter b, Article 1 number 1, Article 3 letter a, Article 4, Article 26 paragraph (2), Article 65, and Article 67 of the JPH Law. The a quo articles have been petitioned by the Petitioner in case No. 5/PUU-XVI/2017, which has been decided by the Constitutional Court.

In his petition, the Petitioner explained that in the part Considering letter b, between the words "religion" and "for", there should be the word "Islam." Likewise, the word "community" should be "Muslim community." The Petitioner argued that the purpose of the JPH Law is to guarantee that every adherent of "Islam" in worshiping and practicing the teachings of their religion, and the state is obliged to provide protection and guarantee about halal products consumed and used by "Muslims." However, the Petitioner considers the JPH Law generalizing all religions as recognizing the concept of haram and that every person needs halal guarantee as contained in the objectives of the JPH Law, which he considers contradicting Article 29 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He believes that Article 4 of the JPH Law actually leads to uncertainty of the target of the a quo law, which makes halal certification compulsory.

“I think, in my opinion, the use of the word ‘religious adherents’ is not so… appropriate, because not all religions [demand] halal quality of products. So, [according to the Petitioner the phrase ‘religious adherents should] be followed by the word ‘Islam.’ So, ‘adherents of Islam’ and ‘community’ must be ‘Muslim community.’ That’s the Petitioner’s opinion,” said the Petitioner in the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih.

The Petitioner then requested confirmation on the definition of halal products. He questioned the products that were required to be halal-certified. "What are required to be halal-certified? That is what I think is not clear in the Law on Halal Product Guarantee. In Article 1 number 1, it is stated that products are goods and/or services related to food, beverages, drugs, cosmetics, chemical products, biological products, genetic engineering products, and goods worn, used, or utilized by the public. In my comprehension as a Petitioner, in this case, [what must be halal-certified is those defined as products]. Which products?" he explained.

The obligation to include non-halal statement on product packaging or on the product itself is very detrimental to the Petitioner. The Petitioner believes that it should be affirmed that it [the product] is not halal for whom. Not halal according to the Islamic law does not mean so in other religions/groups. If in the package or part of the product it is only mentioned "not halal." For this reason, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare the article being tested not have legal binding force and contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

Constitutional Loss

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih asked the Petitioner to describe constitutional loss that he had experienced. She believed that the constitutional loss outlined by the Petitioner was an assumption. She also requested that the Petitioner distinguish the current petition from the previous one so that it would not be nebis in idem like the previous one. "There must be clarity on the reasons for the petition, which aligns with or connects with the petitum. So, [do] not [make it] an assumption of the Petitioner. The constitutional loss must be clear," she suggested.

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra suggested that the Petitioner improve his legal standing. According to him, the Petitioner included two legal standings, namely as a citizen and an advocate. "What needs to be clarified is, [when do you use each of] the two identities. [When do you act] as a citizen? [When do you act] as an advocate? There [might be] concern [about this article] later on if there are also halal advocates or not. Now, things like that must be [clearly explained] in the legal standing," he explained.

The Petitioner was given 14 working days to make revision. The panel of justices will then hold a preliminary hearing session. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)