Constitutional Justices reading out the ruling of the judicial review of Law Number 16 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission and Law Number 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission petitioned by Law Faculty students of various universities in Indonesia. Photo by Humas MK/Hermanto.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review petition of Law Number 16 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission and Law Number 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission petitioned by Law Faculty students of various universities in Indonesia was not accepted by the Constitutional Court (MK).

“The verdict adjudicated, declares the Petitioners’ petition not accepted,” said plenary chairman Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman with the other constitutional justices in the pronouncement of the Decision No. 57/PUU-XVII/2019, Thursday (28/11/2019).

After the Court read the petition carefully, it turns out that Law Number 16 of 2019 referred to in the posita and petitum as the Second Amendment Law to Law Number 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission is not true because Law Number 16 of 2019 is the Law on the Amendment to Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage.

"Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition with regard to Law Number 16 of 2019 that, according to the Petitioners, is the Law on the Second Amendment to Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is a petition with the wrong object or error in objecto," said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih who read out the opinion of the Court.

The Court was of the opinion that because the Petitioners\' petition is related to formal review of Article 29 number 9, Article 30 paragraph (13), and Article 31 of Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission, the Court argued that the Petitioners\' petition had the wrong object, then the judicial review petition of the a quo articles, the Court considered that the petition’s review of Law Number 30 of 2002 was substantially related to the substance of the petition considered in the previous paragraph.

"Thus, as a juridical consequence of the a quo petition, there is no longer any relevance for further consideration. Moreover, Law Number 30 of 2002 was amended by Law Number 19 of 2019, so if the Petitioners wish to file for a review of Article 29 number 9, Article 30 paragraph (13), and Article 31 of Law Number 30 of 2002, [the petition] should relate to Law Number 19 of 2019 because the two laws are an inseparable unity. Therefore, the subject of the petition relating to the norms in Law Number 30 of 2002 will not be considered further. Considering that based on the above considerations, because the Petitioners\' petition has the wrong object, [it] is not further considered," Justice said Enny. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti