---

The Petitioners’ attorney Zainal Arifin Hoesein delivering the revision points of the judicial review petition of the State’s Financial Policy Law, Tuesday (18/8) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of 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 on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. The petition No. 51/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by M. Sirajuddin Syamsuddin and peers. They challenge Article 2 paragraph (1) letter a numbers 1, 2, and 3; Article 27; and Article 28.

The Petitioners’ attorney Merdiansa Paputungan delivered the revision points to the petition, including the reason for the formal review regarding the House’s (DPR) approval that was deemed unconstitutional. He said that the approval or rejection of the perppu should’ve occurred in Session IV.

“Therefore the approval of the perppu into law didn’t meet the provision of Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, so that the Petitioners deem the revocation of the entire a quo law legally grounded,” he said before Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto and Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Session Not Meeting Quorum

Paputungan argued that the decision to approve the perppu into Law No. 2 of 2020 was formally defective. The Petitioners argued that decision-making in the House session is regulated in Article 308 of the House Regulation No. 1 of 2020 on the House’s Code of Conduct, which stresses that any decision must be made when the session meets the quorum. However, the perppu was approved only by part of the entire factions when it was supposed to be approved by the members present in the session.

Only 8 factions approved the perppu while 1 faction rejected it. Article 310 of the House Regulation No. 1 of 2020 on the House’s Code of Conduct stipulates that a decision that is based on deliberation is only valid when it is made in a session attended by the members and elements of the factions and is approved by all members that are present.

“Therefore, the decision to approve the perppu wasn’t based on deliberation, but through voting. This shows that the decision making and House’s sessions are based on the opinions of individual members, not of factions,” he explained alongside attorney Zainal Arifin Hoesein.

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners argued that the reason for the formal review is because the approval of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 into Law No. 2 of 2020 by the House were done in the same session as its stipulation when it was supposed to be in “the next sessions,” according to Article 249 of Regulation No. 1 of 2020 on the House’s Code of Conduct relating to session year and session period. The approval of the perppu violated Article 22 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. As the House had received the perppu in session III, it must be approved/rejected in session IV. In addition, Article 22D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution stipulates that the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) should’ve participated in the discussion of Perppu No. 1 of 2020 as the norm concerns the central and regional budget. However, the House discussed the perppu without the DPD’s involvement. (*)

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Raisa Ayuditha
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 8/19/2020 16:08 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---