Principal Petitioner Supriyono in the ruling judicial review hearing of the Public Information Openness Law (KIP Law), Wednesday (23/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review petition of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Disclosure (KIP Law) was not accepted by the Constitutional Court (MK). The Decision of case No. 45/PUU-XVII/2019 petitioned by Supriyono was pronounced on Wednesday (23/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner had argued the word “setelah” (upon) in Article 38 paragraph (1) and the word “dapat” (could) in Article 38 paragraph (2) of the Public Information Disclosure Law could have multiple interpretations and the potential for misinterpretation. He had 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, in his petition he had 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.

In the legal consideration read out by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court considered the Petitioner\'s petition to only consist of Introduction, Constitutional Court’s Authority, Legal Standing, and Petitum. In the petition, there is no Posita (background of the petition), which is important because it must contain a description that proves the unconstitutionality of the norm of the law petitioned for review. In addition, in his petition, the Petitioner also did not describe clearly and in detail the conflict between the word "upon" in Article 38 paragraph (1) of Law 14/2008 and the word "could" in Article 38 paragraph (2) of Law 14/2008 and Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution as the basis. 

While in fact, Justice Enny added, in the preliminary hearing on September 12, 2019 the Court had advised the Petitioner to revise the petition by elaborating on the bases and reasons for the petition in relation to the norms of the 1945 Constitution used as a touchstone. The Court had also advised the Petitioner to revise the format of the petition following the procedural law of the judicial review of the Constitutional Court, which consists of Constitutional Court’s Authority, Legal Standing, Posita, and Petitum. The Petitioners was also asked to take a look at the Court\'s website and search for Constitutional Court Regulations and also examples of petitions as a reference.

"Based on the description above, it is clear to the Court [that] the Petitioner could not explain the basis [to argue that] the word \'upon\' in Article 38 paragraph (1) of Law 14/2008 and the word \'could\' in Article 38 paragraph (2) of Law 14/2008 contradicts the 1945 Constitution, so the Petitioner\'s description in explaining the reasons for the judicial review of the a quo law is obscured," Enny stressed. (Lulu Anjarsari)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti