---

Principal Petitioner Achdiat Adiwinata conveying subjects of the petition in the examination hearing of the judicial review of the Civil Code, the Basic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960, Law No. 1 of 1967 on Foreign Capital Investment, and Law No, 6 of 1968 on Domestic Capital Investment on Wednesday (30/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held an examination preliminary judicial review hearing of the Civil Code, the Basic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960, Law No. 1 of 1967 on Foreign Capital Investment, and Law No, 6 of 1968 on Domestic Capital Investment on Wednesday (30/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. the case No. 65/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Achdiat Adiwinata.

In the session chaired by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Petitioner said that he felt disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 842 of the Civil Code and/or Jurisprudence No. 391 K/Sip/1969, Decision of the High Court No. 75/1472/Perd./PT.Bdg and the extrication of rights over land, which was then made by the right-to-build certificate (SGB) on behalf of PT Iman Murni Abadi Nurani, right-to-build certificate and certificate of land ownership (SHM) on the land owned by Adiwinata bin Moersan Persil 110, by the Bandung City Land Office. 

Achdiat explained that he had not been able to accept the Bandung District Court Decision, the Bandung High Court Decision, and the Supreme Court Decision because the Bandung District Court had applied an unclear legal basis. The consideration of the ruling only emphasized the letter of the Principal of SD Nilem II that Tardiah was born in 1947, even though the information was legally flawed because “Atma Widjaja” was handwritten and was legitimate. Therefore, the Petitioner considered that the amendment to the statement was doubtful.

"With the decision of the district court after the decision of the religious court, they overlapped and competed for authority," Achdiat said.

He said based on Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate at the first and final level, the decision of which is final, among other things, to examine the law against the Constitution and to decide on disputes over the authority of state institutions whose authorities are granted by the Constitution. According to him, the judicial review reviews law indirectly but it is taken as the subject matter, and/or the cause of the principal case from other laws and/or regulations, i.e. the Decision of District Court and the Decision of the Land Agency both in judicial review and in the dispute of authority. Therefore, based on that article, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court decide the dispute by revoking the Decision of the District Court. 

In addition, the Petitioner considered that Bandung District Court, the Bandung High Court, and the Supreme Court not authorized to examine and adjudicate the inheritance of the deceased Adiwinata Bin Moersan, also known as Totong Adiwinata (Totong being a nickname) and (deceased) Soemarni. Tardiah desired to be declared an heir to Adiwinata bin Moersan/Totong Adiwinata, who claimed to be the son of Atma Widjaja Anang Sobandi. The authority to adjudicate marriage, inheritance, will, and grants is the authority of the religioun court. 

Justices’ Advice 

In response, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said that the Petitioner need to explain the constitutional rights of the Petitioner, which were harmed by the enactment of the law by the legal standing of the Petitioner. "When the constitutional rights were impaired by the law being reviewed, the reason for the petition must be clarified so as to convince the justices that there was a conflict," he said. Justice Arief Hidayat also asked the Petitioner to read the previous decisions in the Constitutional Court as a reference for the petition.

Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna. Palguna also advised that the Petitioner explain his legal standing. "The description of the legal standing is important. If you do not elaborate on it, we will not examine the principal petition," he said. In addition, on the reasons for the petition, the Petitioner needs to elaborate on the argument.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams suggested that the Petitioner revise his application. The Petitioner was given 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 10:00 WIB. (Utami/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---