---

Preliminary hearing of case No. 51/PUU-XVIII/2020 filed by M. Sirajuddin Syamsuddin and others on Wednesday (15/7/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Agung.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Law No. 2 of 2020 on the Government Regulation In Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 1 of 2020 on the Stipulation of the State’s Financial Policy and Fiscal Stability for the Mitigation of the COVID-19 Pandemic and/or in Order to Face Threats That Endanger the National Economy and/or the Financial System’s Stability into Law was challenged once again. M. Sirajuddin Syamsuddin filed for the formal and material review of Article 2 paragraph (1) letter a numbers 1, 2, and 3; Article 27; and Article 28 in case No. 51/PUU-XVIII/2020. The preliminary hearing took place on Wednesday, July 15, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom.

Before presiding justice Aswanto, attorney Ahmad Yani stated that the reason for the formal review is because the stipulation of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 into Law No. 2 of 2020 by the House (DPR) was done in the same session when it was supposed to be in the next session, according to Artcile 249 of Regulation No. 1 of 2020 on the House’s Code of Conduct relating to session period. He stated that the approval of the perppu violated Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. He added that Article 22D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) shall participate in the discussion of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 as the norm concerns the central and regional budget.

Revision Illegal

Ahmad Yani also argued that the 3 percent legal limit of state budget deficit in Article 2 paragraph (1) letter a numbers 1, 2, and 3 of Law No. 2 of 2020 is constitutional. He explained that Law No. 17 of 2003 on State Finances already regulates state budget allocation in emergency without the need for issuing a perppu. Therefore, there is no urgency to issue the article.

“The [state budget cannot be stipulated] in a perppu. It is not only illegal, but haram [prohibited], not to mention be stipulated into Law No. 2 of 2020. And it can only be revised though a revised budget. The reason that COVID-19 caused legal vacuum is unfounded,” he said.

Impunity

The Petitioners also questioned impunity given to officials within the Financial Sector Policy Committee (KKSK) through Article 27 paragraph (1) of No. 2 of 2020. The article allows for corruption since it stipulates that the costs incurred by the government for COVID-19 mitigation, including regional taxation policiesand national economic recovery programs,shall not constitute a state loss. It also provides protection to those who may commit acts that harm the nation, which is a violation of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27, and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. That is why the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare the articles unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Legal Standing

Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Petitioners to revise their legal standing while Justice Foekh recommended that the format of the articles be made consistent throughout the petition. The Petitioners were given 14 working days to revise the petition until Tuesday, July 28, 2020 at 13:00 WIB.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Lambang S.
Photographer: Agung Sumarna
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 7/16/2020

---