Petitioners of case No. 28/PUU-XVII/2019 in the ruling hearing on Thursday (28/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Hermanto.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) did not grant the judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and Law No. 48 of 2009 on the Judicial Power on Thursday (28/11/2019). The case No. 28/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Viktor Santoso Tandiasa (Petitioner I) and Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak (Petitioner II).

In the legal consideration read out by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Court stated while the Court is the interpreter of the Constitution, referring to the Petitioners\\' argument that constitutional complaints are part of the judicial review so that the Court can expand its authorities, the Court was of the opinion that this was not done by the Constitutional Court as a separate activity. In other words, the Court must remain interpreting the Constitution and hearing constitutional cases, which are its authorities. So, through the Constitutional Court\\'s decisions on cases under its purview, the Constitutional Court\\'s interpretation is also based on its elaboration of the notions contained in the Constitution. Thus, Justice Suhartoyo added, in interpreting the Constitution, the Constitutional Court is limited by its authorities. Although the authorities are subject to the interpretation of the Court, the Constitution also does not provide clear definition and limits of said authorities.

"The principle of supremacy of the judiciary is accepted in the interpretation of the Constitution because if all state institutions are equally given the authority to interpret issues related to the Constitution, [there will be] endless bickering or political disputes," Justice Suhartoyo said while reading out the legal consideration in the ruling hearing in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Addition of New Norm

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra confirmed that academically, the Petitioners’ statement that the constitutional complaints mechanism is part of judicial review as both are basically part of constitutional review, which is the main function of constitutional courts in the world. From this main function, two main functions of the Constitutional Court was derived, that is, maintaining the "checks and balances" mechanism between branches of state power and protecting the rights of individual citizens from possible violations by branches of state power. Traced back to the Indonesian legal system, both are part of the duties of legislators who are obliged to make an official interpretation the laws they have made. Therefore, with the additional interpretation requested by the Petitioners so that the Constitutional Court has the authority in the matter of constitutional complaints, it can be categorized as adding a new norm. "Therefore, it turns out there is no constitutionality issue in the subject of the a quo petition. Therefore, the Petitioners\\' petition is not considered further," said Justice Saldi. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti