Petitioner Suharjo Triatmanto (left) in the ruling judicial review hearing of the use of phrases and words in the Constitution and legislation, Wednesday (23/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The petition filed by Suharjo Triatmanto on the use of phrases and words in the 1945 Constitution and legislation was not accepted. The Decision No. 43/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto on Wednesday (23/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Suharjo had previously 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 shall be subject to the grammar of bahasa Indonesia. According to him, 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.

Reading out the legal considerations, Justice Aswanto stated that the justices had advised that the Petitioner elaborate on the reason why he believed that the norm in question was unconstitutional. They had also requested that the Petitioner consult with legal experts who understood the procedural law of the Constitutional Court and its authorities.

"However, in the revised petition received by the Court on September 20, 2019, the Petitioner\'s petition remained unclear and the Petitioner still did not elaborate his petition following Article 51A paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Regulations Number 06/PMK/2005 concerning Procedural Law on Judicial Review and also did not clearly explain the conflict between the norm reviewed and the 1945 Constitution," Justice Aswanto explained before the other six constitutional justices. 

Justice Aswanto explained that the Court had carefully read the Petitioner\'s petition and concluded that the reasons for submitting the petition (fundamentum petendi or posita) did not match the matters requested to be decided (petitum), making the petition obscure. "Considering that based on the above considerations, according to the Court, the Petitioner\'s petition is unclear or obscure so that it is not considered further," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti