Some 200 students of the Law Faculty of the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta visiting the Constitutional Court, Monday (15/4). Photo by Humas MK/Dedy.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Head of the Legal and Registrar Administration Bureau Wiryanto welcomed students of the Law Faculty of the Islamic University of Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta on Monday morning (15/4/2019) in the Conference Room of the Constitutional Court. “[…] the petition is made into twelve copies with evidence, pursuant to the regulations and Regulation of the Constitutional Court. However, for legislative election [cases], it is four copies,” he said on the practice of judicial reviews in the Court.

He then explained four categories of petitioner who have legal standing to file a petition to the Court. They are Indonesian individual citizens, customary law communities, public or private legal entities, and state institutions. After the petition is registered, the Court schedules a hearing. Then, a preliminary examination is adjudicated by a panel of justices, where the subject of the petition is conveyed and the justices provide recommendations. Then a hearing is held to hear the revision of the petition according to the recommendations of the justices. It is followed by an evidentiary hearing where experts, Government representative, House of Representatives, Relevant Party, Respondent, and witnesses are presented. Then, the justices discuss the results at a deliberation meeting (RPH), whose results are then read out in a ruling hearing.

Wiryanto also explained the history of judicial review, which began with the Marbury v. Madison case (1803) in the U.S. He also talked about the history of judicial review in Indonesia since independence until the 1998 reforms. The Constitutional Court was then established on August 13, 2003. The Court has four authorities: reviewing laws against the Constitution, deciding on interagency dispute, deciding on the dissolution of political parties, and deciding on election result disputes. One obligation of the Court is deciding on the House’s opinion of alleged violation committed by the president and/or vice president. Another additional authority of the Court is deciding on regional head election disputes.

Wiryanto also talked about the implications of the Constitutional Court decisions. He said that in practice, the Court’s decisions have not been optimally implemented. The Government and the House should follow up on the laws being reviewed, by either changing their content or replacing them with lew laws. “However, the Constitutional Court decisions are not necessarily implemented by the Government and the House. Because the Court does not have the authority to [ensure the execution of] its decisions, it only reviews laws, whether they are constitutional or not,” he stressed. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)