Plenary ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Civil Code through video conference on Wednesday (11/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) declared it did not accept the judicial review petition of the Civil Code, jurisprudence No. 391 K/Sip/1969, No. 4 K/Sip/1983, Decision of Bandung High Court No. 75/1472/Perd/PT.BDG, Law No. 5 of 1960, Law No. 1 of 1967, Law No. 6 of 1968, and the Decision of the Head of Agrarian Office of Bandung City No. 550.2/22/HGB/ 1996. The petition was filed by Bandung civil servant retiree Achdiat Adiwinata.

“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. 65/PUU-XVII/2019, Wednesday (11/12/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

Specifically, in the preliminary hearing on October 30, 2019 the Court advised the Petitioner to clarify his petition because the Court had difficulty understanding the elaboration. It is not only because the petition was very difficult to understand, but also because the Petitioner confused the Court’s judicial review authority with the authority to hear concrete or civil cases, which belongs to general courts under the Supreme Court. 

"This is not only in the title of the petition, but also in the posita and petitum of the Petitioner\'s petition. The Court also suggested that the Petitioner consult with parties who understand the procedures for drafting and filing for judicial review," said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, who read out the legal considerations of the decision. 

After the Court had carefully examined the Petitioner\'s petition and its revision, it turned out that the revision not only did not fulfill the requirements as specified in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 5 paragraph (1) of PMK 6/2005, but also it only provided commentary by the Petitioner on the justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing. 

With regard to the Petitioner\'s explanation that the revision was intended as part of or was an explanation of the initial petition, the Court was of the opinion that even so, what the Petitioner challenged was not a matter of constitutionality of the norms of the law against the 1945 Constitution, but the application of the law by the general court. 

“Considering all the above considerations, the Court believes that the Petitioner\'s petition was unclear or vague,” Justice Arief affirmed. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti