Judicial review hearing of Law Number 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantee, Tuesday (26/3) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Syifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court rejected the judicial review of provision on the definition of halal product as stipulated in Law No. 33/2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH). The Decision No. 8/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out on Tuesday afternoon (26/3/2019). The Petitioner was Paustinus Siburian, a legal consultant on halal products.

In his petition, the Petitioner argued that the JPH Law generalized 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 considered contradicting Article 29 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He believed that Article 4 of the JPH Law actually leads to the 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 was deemed detrimental to the Petitioner. He believed that it should be affirmed for who [the product] is considered not halal. Not halal according to the Islamic law does not mean so in other religions/groups, if the package or part of the product only mentions "not halal." Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner had requested that the Constitutional Court declare the article being reviewed not legally binding and contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

In legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Court is of the opinion that the provision of halal product guarantee is not an attempt to apply Islamic law to all communities, including non-Muslim communities. Sociologically, the JPH Law aims to provide legal protection in the form of guarantee for halal products that are consumed or used by Muslims in accordance with their religious teachings. "However, it does not mean that the existence of halal-guaranteed products will restrict people to consume non-halal products," he said.

Constitutionally, he added, the enactment of the JPH Law is a manifestation of state responsibility in protecting the rights of the people to guarantee a healthy and protected life in worship in accordance with the teachings of the religion as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution. Muslims have to follow Islamic syaria that prohibits certain products from consumption. Therefore, if no law regulated these needs, Muslim communities would have difficulties in fulfilling the guidelines of Islamic syaria law. Thus, there is no connection at all between the enactment of Law 33/2014 and efforts to apply Islamic law to all communities, including non-Muslim communities, as feared by the Petitioner.

"Based on the whole elaboration of legal considerations above, the entire petition of the Petitioner regarding the norms in Law 33/2014 submitted for judicial review in the a quo petition is legally groundless," Justice Wahiduddin said. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)