---

Constitutional Court researcher Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono welcoming law students of Diponegoro University (Undip), Wednesday (25/9). Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court’s mechanism of judicial review of laws against the Constitution requires two things: petition and evidence. This was said by researcher Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono to answer a question from a law student of Diponegoro University (Undip).

"The petition is filed in writing in bahasa Indonesia by the Petitioner or their attorney in twelve copies," said Lutfi to the students who visited the Court on Wednesday (25/9/2019).

The petition contains the identity of the Petitioner, elaboration of the issue on which the petition is based, which includes the authorities of the Court, the legal standing of the Petitioner, containing a clear elaboration of the Petitioner\'s assumption about the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights and/or authority that has been impaired by the enactment of the law petitioned for review, and also the reason of the petition. Finally, the petitum is to grant the Petitioner\'s petition, stating that the law being reviewed is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force. 

“The format of the petition, [you] could easily observe the format in the case section of the Constitutional Court decision. Find a good sample of Constitutional Court decision, that was granted, if possible. Another alternative is consulting the Constitutional Court of the way to draft a petition,” Luthfi explained.

Luthfi also answered a student’s question of the difference between the judicial review and judicial preview. Judicial review is a review of the legislation after it was passed, while judicial preview is done before it.

Luthfi explained the three concepts of review of the legislation. First, by the Supreme Court as in the United States. Second, by a separate institution, i.e. the Constitutional Court. Third, through the judicial preview.

"France applies the judicial preview. There is a constitutional commission there that examines the appropriateness of a law before it is formed. But judicial preview has the disadvantage of not being able to keep up with the times," Lutfi added. 

During the meeting, Lutfi explained amendments to the 1945 Constitutional in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Before the amendment, it was stated that the MPR was the country\'s highest institution and the President answered to the MPR. However, after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, there are no longer the highest state institutions. MPR is no longer the highest state institution. The position of the People\'s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the President, the Supreme Court (MA), the Supreme Audit Board (BPK), and the Constitutional Court (MK) are equal. 

"Besides that, after the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, several state institutions were dissolved, for example, the Supreme Advisory Council. New state institutions emerged, the Regional Representatives Council and the Judicial Commission," said Lutfi. 

Lutfi said, before the amendment to the 1945 Constitution, the executors of judicial power in Indonesia were only the Supreme Court and the courts below it. After the amendment, they are the Supreme Court and the courts under it as well as the Constitutional Court, established on August 13, 2003. 

Lutfi also mentioned the four authorities and one obligation of the Constitutional Court. The authorities are examining laws against the Constitution, deciding upon disputes of authority between state institutions, deciding upon the dissolution of political parties, and deciding upon disputes over election results. The obligation of the Constitutional Court is to decide upon the opinion of the House of Representatives if the President and or Vice President are suspected of violating the law or of dishonorable acts. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---