---

Petitioner Eliadi Hulu conveying the revision to the petition in the judicial review hearing of aw No. 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court on Thursday (9/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court on Thursday (9/7/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.. The hearing for case No. 14 of 1985 examined the revision to the petition.

Eliadi Hulu, one of the Petitioners, conveyed the revision to the petition, including the addition of four petitioners: Andri Marbun, Mario Daniel Pardamean Hutabarat, Kevin Jonathan Lazarus, and Batara Budiono Siburian, thus changed the legal standing.

The Petitioners explained their factual losses in points 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and their potential losses in points 3, 4, 5, and 6. They also added Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution as touchstone, which reads, “The State of Indonesia is a state based on the rule of law.” They also added a legal basis in the Constitutional Court’s authorities.

Also read: University Students Challenge Re-Enactment of Norms Annuled by Supreme Court 

Law students of the Indonesian Christian University (UKI) and Brawijaya University Deddy Rizaldy Arwin Gutomo (Petitioner I) and Maulana Farras Ilmanhuda (Petitioner II), as well as Healthy Indonesia Card participant Eliadi Hulu (Petitioner III) filed a petition for the judicial review of Law No. 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court.

In the petition No. 40/PUU-XVIII/2020 the Petitioners argue that Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In full, Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court reads, "A legislation that is declared invalid as referred to in paragraph (3) shall not have binding legal force."

In the hearing, Maulana Farras stated that Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law caused the Petitioners to experience actual constitutional damage because they did not receive benefits and legal certainty over the re-enactment of an article that regulates the same thing even though it was revoked by the Supreme Court. If the Petitioners file for a judicial review petition to the Supreme Court and the petition is granted, there is a possibility that the content of the revoked article or paragraph be re-enacted shortly.

The Petitioners believe that the re-enactment of norms that have been revoked by the Supreme Court in a short time implies a decline in the spirit of the Supreme Court and creates a public opinion that the Supreme Court’s decisions do not have final legal force.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law unconstitutional and not legally binding so long as it is not interpreted as “A legislation that is declared invalid as referred to in paragraph (3) shall not have binding legal force and any paragraph, article, and/or part of the legislation may not be re-enacted.” (Utami/tir/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 7/10/2020

---