Principal Petitioner Supriyono explaining the subject of petition revision in the judicial review hearing of the Public Information Disclosure Law (KIP Law), Thursday (26/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the revision judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Disclosure (KIP Law), Thursday (26/9/2019) 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. 

Supriyono requested affirmation by the Constitutional Court of the interpretation of the article due to alleged real legal uncertainty that is not merely assumptions resulting from different interpretations of these norms in legal practice. Supriyono mentioned as concrete examples of the multiple interpretations of the meaning of the word “setelah” (upon) Article 34 paragraph (1) and Article 74 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 475 paragraph (1) of the Election Law. The Constitutional Court has interpreted the word “setelah” (upon) as one day or one working day, since which an obligation or right is calculated. This, Supriyono added, contradicts the interpretation of the phrase “setelah” (upon) in Article 38 paragraph (1) of the Public Information Disclosure Law, which is interpreted in written response and official decisions since receiving a request for information dispute resolution, which is one day or one working day not, yet calculated as obligation or the right since the filing of the request. 

"So, there is still a waiting time that cannot be determined for certain or a very long grace period to begin the process of information dispute settlement. This applies, not only to the Petitioner, but to all Indonesian citizens who submit requests for public information dispute settlement," explained Supriyono. 

Supriyono also mentioned that the word “dapat” (could) has also led to a shift in meaning in practice. This is clearly illustrated in Constitutional Court Decision Number 25/PUU-XIV/2016 whereas Article 38 Paragraph (2) of the KIP Law is interpreted that the information dispute resolution process is calculated, both from the time of receipt of the request or from the time of the first trial exceeding 100 working days. Thus, this can mean that the dispute resolution process is no later than 100 working days and seems to have no binding legal force.

"So, the word “dapat” (could) in the a quo law regulates the deadline for the settlement process, but in practice it neglects it so that it has other legal impacts such as Article 24 paragraph (2) of the Ombudsman Law of the Republic of Indonesia that limits citizens from reporting suspected administrative violations in only 2 years or 24 months, while it is clearly proven information dispute hearing process only begins 22 months after the request is registered and it has not yet been calculated from the 100 working days that may be exceeded," said Supriyono. 

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. 

Therefore, the Petitioner in his petitum 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. (Sri Pujianti/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti