Government Admits Ratification of Perppu on COVID-19 Mitigation into Law

Financial Ministry Sri Mulyani Indrawati representing the president in the material review hearing of the Government Regulation In Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2020 regarding the State’s Financial Policy and Fiscal Stability for the Mitigation of COVID-19 Pandemic (Perppu on COVID-19 Mitigation) on Wednesday (20/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Government admitted to having ratified the Government Regulation In Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2020 regarding the State’s Financial Policy and Fiscal Stability for the Mitigation of COVID-19 Pandemic and/or in Order to Face Threats That Endanger the National Economy and/or the Stability of the Financial System. This was revealed by Financial Ministry Sri Mulyani Indrawati on behalf of the presidentin the material review hearing of the Government Regulation In Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2020 regarding the State’s Financial Policy and Fiscal Stability for the Mitigation of COVID-19 Pandemic (Perppu on COVID-19 Mitigation) on Wednesday (20/5/2020)in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The third hearing of case No. 23/PUU-XVIII/2020 and No. 24/PUU-XVIII/2020 applied physical distancing in accordance with the health protocols set by the Indonesian Health Ministry and the World Health Organization (WHO).

Sri Mulyani also revealed that the House (DPR) had approved the bill on the Stipulation of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 into Law. After the House’s approval, the Government also ratified the House’s approval through Law. No. 2 of 2020 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation In Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2020 regarding the State’s Financial Policy and Fiscal Stability for the Mitigation of COVID-19 Pandemic and/or in Order to Face Threats That Endanger the National Economy and/or the Stability of the Financial System into Law in the House’s 15^th Plenary Meeting of the Meeting Period III of 2019-2020 on Tuesday, May 12, 2020.

“It is [recorded] in the State Gazette of 2020 Number 134, Supplement to the State Gazette Number 6516, and hereinafter referred to as Law Number 2 of 2020,” Sri Mulyani explained before the hearing presided over by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman.

Legal and Political Logic

One of the attorneys of Petitioners of case No. 23/PUU-XVIII/2020 Zainal Arifin Hoesein stated that they accepted the Government’s statement with the consequence of losing the petition’s object. However, he stated that under the normal legal logic, there had been hastiness in the ratification of the law, which made him suspicious of any political agenda. “So, law has mixed with politics and will violate the principles of a rule of law,” he said.

Another attorney Ahmad Yani added that given that the case’s object has been passed into law, the Petitioners would prepare a new petition with clear and firm arguments. He believed that the a quo perppu had not supposed to be ready for the House, either to be accepted or rejected.

“A political decision was made by the House of Representatives. This [law] might be our future petition, both in terms of formal-procedure or substance, against this perppu, which has been passed into law,” he said before the eight constitutional justices.

No Evidence

The attorney of Petitioners of case No. 24/PUU-XVIII/2020 argued against the Government’s statement that, based on Article 37 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court examines a case based on the evidence presented to the Court in the hearings. Therefore, they requested that the Government submit evidence of the President’s letter to the House, including the correspondence within the Government in terms of the passing of the a quo perppu into law.

“Therefore, we appeal that the Honorable Constitutional Justices order the Respondent to present the evidence. From [the evidence] it will be clear whether the perppu has been passed into law or not. So it wouldn’t be a mere statement,” Kurniawan stated.

Petition No. 23/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by M. Sirajuddin Syamsuddin, Sri Edi Swasono, Amien Rais, and 21 other individuals of different professions. Petition No. 24/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by the Indonesian Anticorruption Community (MAKI), Mega Bintang Solo Indonesia 1997 Foundation, and three other organizations.

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners of case No. 23/PUU-XVIII/2020 had argued that Article 2 paragraph (1) letter a numbers 1, 2, and 3; Article 16; Article 23; Article 27; and Article 28 of the Perppu on COVID-19 Mitigation are unconstitutional. They believe that the a quo perppu does not meet the three force majeure requirements as a parameter for the issuance of a perppu according to the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 138/PUU-VII/2009. The a quo norm would allow for the state budget deficit beyond the 3% gross domestic product (GDP) limit without a ceiling. This regulation would directly inhibit the House of Representatives (DPR) from giving approval on the state budget. In addition, they believe that Article 27 paragraph (1) of the perppu potentially leads to corruption.

Meanwhile, the Petitioners of case No. 24/PUU-XVIII/2020 had argued that Article 27 paragraph (1) of the a quo perppu states that the costs incurred by the Government in the context of implementing state revenue policiesshall not constitute a loss to the state, while in fact the source of state revenue comes from the state budget. They also believe that in Article 27 paragraph (2) of the a quo perppu there is the word “if,” which the president or the Government could use to avoid any allegation of legal immunity. So, the word “if” carries multiple interpretations and public officials could hide behind the phrase “good faith” to be free of any legal charges. Law No. 12 of 2005 on the Ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that any policy based on good faith that leads to state loss should be reviewed legally and openly. So, there shouldn’t be such a thing as good faith based merely on a subjective judgment by a government administration.

Before concluding the session, Justice Anwar informed the Petitioners of both cases and the President’s attorneys that the Constitutional Court will send a notice on the results of the justice deliberation meeting.

To help curb the spread of COVID-19, the petitioners and their attorney(s), the government, experts, witnesses, and other parties can use the online courtroom facilities. The Constitutional Court uses Cloudx and Zoom for online hearing from the parties’ respective residences. In order to be able to use the online courtroom facilities, the litigating parties are to notify the Court’s ICT team of their locations and the instruments that they have at least two days before the hearing. Other parties can watch the hearing online through the Court’s YouTube channel’s livestream. (Sri Pujianti/RA/LA)

News

Government Admits Ratification of Perppu on COVID-19 Mitigation into Law