---

Principal Petitioner Supriyono in the preliminary judicial review hearing of the Public Information Disclosure Law (KIP Law), Thursday (12/9) 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 judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Disclosure (KIP Law), Thursday (12/9/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.  The case No. 45/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by Supriyono, who deemed Article 38 paragraphs (1) and (2) of said law contradicts Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution. The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih with Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Suhartoyo.

Article 38 paragraph (1) of the Public Information Disclosure Law reads, “Central Information Commission and Provincial Information Commission and/or Regency/Municipal Information Commission shall begin the process of Public Information Dispute Settlement through Mediation and/or non-litigation Adjudication within 14 (fourteen) working days upon receiving request for Public Information Dispute Settlement.” Article 38 paragraph (1) reads, “Dispute settlement process as referred to in paragraph (1) could be completed within 100 (one hundred) working days.”

The Petitioner believes the phrase “setelah” (upon) in Article 38 paragraph (1) and the phrase “dapat” (could) in Article 38 paragraph (2) of the Public Information Disclosure Law could have multiple interpretations and the potential for misinterpretation. He illustrated the use of the phrase "could" in that article in the information dispute settlement process he experienced in case No. 005/III/KIP-PS/2018, whose non-litigation adjudication exceeded 100 days.

"While in fact, the legal limit has legal impacts. So, the phrase "could" in the a quo article clearly restricted the Petitioner in the effort to gather evidence to settle the case for the judicial review of the Ombudsman Law," said Supriyono, who was present alone without an attorney. 

Therefore, Supriyono in his petition requested that the Court declare the phrase "upon" in Article 38 paragraph (1) of the KIP Law not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted in context solely to determine the first day since the requirements for formal petition are fulfilled and recorded in the case registration book the phrase "could" in Article 38 paragraph (2) of the KIP Law in conflict with the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force. 

Implementation Issue

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said that the problem outlined by the Petitioner was more an issue of implementation of a norm by an institution. According to him, if the Petitioner insisted that the word "upon" be removed, would he be sure of the expected legal certainty. Justice Suhartoyo added that the word could mean the implementation of the investigation of the case that had been registered be carried out in the following days. "Therefore, Petitioner, please give an argument about the grace period, what it is like. Likewise, the word "could," if removed, what are the legal consequences? If the settlement can be resolved more quickly, how?" said Justice Suhartoyo. 

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams saw that in the petition the Petitioner\\'s legal standing was not yet clear. He was concerned that if the Constitutional Court removed or changed the word "upon" and the word "could" in the law, the meaning of the norm could change. Constitutional Justice Enny believed the case was a concrete case and not an issue of constitutionality of norms. 

Before concluding the session, Justice Enny informed that the Petitioner was given 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 14:15 WIB to the Registrar\\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/Budi Prasetyo/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---