Paustinus Siburian as attorney for the Petitioner delivering the petition revision for the judicial review of the Law on Halal Product Guarantee, Tuesday (12/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the second hearing of the provision on the definition of halal product as stipulated in Law No. 33/2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH) on Tuesday afternoon (12/2/2019). Petitioner No. 8/PUU-XVII/2019 Paustinus Siburian, a legal consultant on halal products, conveyed the revision to the petition.

Paustinus explained the petition had been adjusted to the advice by the panel of justices at the previous hearing. One of the changes made is the addition of Article 60 of the JPH Law. "On nebis in idem, I added the provision of Article 60 of the JPH Law as a basis [to support] that in my opinion it is not nebis in idem," he explained.

In addition, the Petitioner changed the focus of the petition, initially on halal certification, to halal products. "I do not mind the halal certification obligation. But I followed Your Honors Chairperson of the panel, to change it to question the word \'product,\'"he said before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

He had previously 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.

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. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)