---

Preliminary examination hearing of the Halal Guarantee Law (JPH Law), Tuesday (17/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Luisa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Halal certification, previously under purview of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) through its food and drug analysis agencies (LPPOM), is now under the Government through the Religious Affairs Ministry, as stipulated in Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH). The law was challenged by LPPOM officials from 31 provinces, specifically Article 5, Article 6, and Article 47 paragraphs (2) and (3). In the preliminary examination hearing of case No. 49/PUU-XVII/2019, the Petitioners argued that the a quo articles contradicted Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28C, Article 28E paragraph (2), Article 28J paragraph (2), and Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

One of the Petitioners\\' attorneys Syaeful Anwar stated that the authority to determine halal and haram certification had been given to the MUI through the MUI Fatwa Commission Board by forming a special body, LPPOM MUI. In addition, this institution had been accepted by the public since 1989. However, he added, Articles 5 and Article 6 of the JPH Law transferred the function of this institution to the Halal Certification Agency (BPJPH) is under the Religious Affairs Ministry. Meanwhile, Article 47 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the JPH Law resulted in the limitation and/or reduction of the authority of the MUI to BPJPH to cooperate with overseas halal certification institutions without including the MUI. This left the impression that foreign products were let to enter Indonesia without going through the halal certification process, or without the MUI fatwa. 

"Therefore, these articles shall be annulled and [the petition] granted following the Petitioners\\' wish," Syaeful said before the bench consisting of chairman Deputy Chief Constitutional Justice Aswanto and Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M. P. Sitompul. 

Therefore, in the petition, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 5, Article 6, and Article 47 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the JPH Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution not having binding legal force. 

System Implementation

In response Justice Manahan stated that the Petitioners, as part of the institution, needed to explain their legal standing clearly to clarify those entitled to represent the institution both inside and outside the court. That is because it is important to link the a quo case and the interests of the institution and its relevance to the judicial review petition. In addition, he requested that the Petitioners clearly describe the implementation of the mandatory system, which resulted in the loss of protection of the Petitioners due to legal uncertainty.

Disadvantaged

Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto stated that the Petitioners were supposed to describe the impacts of the transfer of authority from LPPOM MUI to BPJPH, which was detrimental to the community, especially related to the requirements to obtain halal product labels. "Is the community even harmed by this takeover of authority?" asked Justice Aswanto in the hearing held on Tuesday (17/9/2019).

Therefore, the Petitioners must elaborate on this issue comprehensively, bearing in mind that the new body does not mean a takeover of the MUI\\'s authority, especially to issue halal product recommendation letters. "The authority for issuing [the letter] is still with MUI. So, please make a comprehensive elaboration so that the Court believes that there is indeed a constitutional impairment of the Petitioners," Justice Aswanto explained. 

Before concluding the hearing, the Petitioners were given 14 working days by the justices to revise the petition. The revised petition is to be submitted to the Court\\'s Registrar Office by September 30, 2019 at 10:00 WIB. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---