---

Principal Petitioner Suharjo explaining the subject of petition in the preliminary hearing on the use of phrases and words in the Constitution and laws, Tuesday (10/09) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Iqbal.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing on the use of phrases and words in the Constitution and laws, Tuesday (10/9/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The petition was filed by Suharjo Triatmanto. The hearing of case No. 43/PUU-XVII/2019 was presided over by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul, with Constitutional Justices I Dewa Gede Palguna and Arief Hidayat. 

Suharjo, who was present without attorney, expressed his concerns with the drafting of laws and regulations that are not based on the Great Bahasa Indonesia Dictionary (KBBI) while the government institution that compiled KBBI has legal legality. Laws and regulations are subject to the grammar of bahasa Indonesia.

According to Suharjo, some words in various legal products show meanings that far from their intended meaning, resulting in ambiguity and interpretations not following the intention of legislators. Suharjo mentioned the use of the word ayat ("verse") according to the KBBI meaning address or sign; sentences that constitute units that make up a surah in scriptures; sentences that constitute a unit as part of an article in a law. According to him, the use of the word "verse" in laws and regulations means a unit of an article in a law.

"However, in drafting of laws and regulations, legislators do not provide information on whether the meaning of the word verse has the intended meaning, because according to the KBBI the word verse has three different meanings," explained Suharjo, who professed that he is a nuclear expert. 

Object Unclear

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat expressed his confusion about the petition. He explained that the Constitutional Court is authorized to review legal products against the 1945 Constitution but if the Petitioner wishes to review bylaws he can petition it to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner must be able to fully explain what he wishes to achieve from submitting this petition. "[In] this petition, we did not identify the law at issue. We see that this is not a judicial review [petition] because the object is only the Constitution. It should also be noted that the Constitutional Court is tasked with safeguarding the Constitution. If any law [passed] is not coherent with the law, it is the task of this institution [to review it]," he explained.

Justice Arief also stated that the identity of the Petitioner was not clearly explained in the legal standing, whether as an individual or else, whose constitutional rights are violated and henceforth must be described in the legal standing.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Palguna was confused by the Petitioner’s intention. He stated that the Constitutional Court is not an institution authorized to make grammatical improvements to legislation. "Even if you want to improve the grammar associated with legal language, this cannot be submitted because legal language [is] its own variety," he explained.

If the Petitioner wishes to review a law against the 1945 Constitution, he must fulfill the terms and conditions as well as the petition format and procedural law at the Constitutional Court. Justice Palguna then asked the Petitioner to reiterate whether he wishes to request a judicial review or something else.

Constitutional Justice Manahan requested that the Petitioner really study carefully the format of petitions submitted to the Constitutional Court. In addition, he also requested that the Petitioner consult with legal experts to assist him in completing the revision of the petition in connection with the violation of his constitutional rights by the enactment of a provision of the law.

Before concluding the session, Justice Manahan informed the Petitioner that he would have 14 days to revise the petition. It has to be submitted to the Court’s Registrar Office by Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:00 WIB. (Sri Pujianti/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---