---

Ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court on Thursday (27/8) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the ruling hearing of case No. 40/PUU-XVIII/2020 on the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon, August 27, 2020. The petition was filed by Deddy Rizaldy Arwin Gutomo, Maulana Farras Ilmanhuda, Eliadi Hulu, and peers.

The Petitioners submitted the revised petition on July 6, 2020, which then examined at a hearing on July 9. Although the revised petition had complied with the provision of Article 31 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law as well as Article 5 paragraph (1) letters a, b, c, and d of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 6/PMK/2005, the Court found that the law petitioned for review had been changed.

The Petitioners had initially challenged Article 31 paragraph (4) of Law No. 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as Law No. 5 of 2004). In the revised petition, they challenged Law No. 3 of 2009.

The Court is of the opinion that the increase of healthcare premium doesn’t necessary reflect any change of the interpretation of the constitutionality of Article 31 paragraph (4) of Law No. 5 of 2004 as the Petitioners had claimed because it applies to all regulations under the law that are petitioned for review in the Supreme Court, not only to Perpres No. 64 of 2020.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, who read out the opinion of the Court, said the Court couldn’t understand the Petitioners’ reason for requesting that the article be declared 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,” because in the judicial review in the Supreme Court, Article 31 paragraph (4) of Law No. 5 of 2004 has stipulated that if the norm petitioned for review has been declared null and void, it means that it is no longer legally binding and cannot be re-enacted. However, any new norm with a similar subject matter with that norm will have legally binding force.

Because the Petitioners’ petitum is already in line with Article 31 paragraph (4) of Law No. 5 of 2004, there is no need for another interpretation that could lead to obscurity. Therefore, there is no constitutionality issue regarding the a quo norm, and it has provided legal certainty.

“Based on the above considerations, although the Court has the authority to adjudicate on the a quo petition, because the Petitioners’ petition is vague, it doesn’t meet the formal requirements of a petition pursuant to Article 30 and Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law. Therefore, the Court didn’t consider the Petitioners’ legal standing and petition any further,” said Justice Arief.

Also read:

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

Petitioners of Supreme Court Law Increase

The Petitioners challenged Law No. 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court. At the preliminary hearing led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, along with Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Manahan M. P. Sitompul on Monday, June 22, 2020, the Petitioners argued that Article 31 paragraph (4) of the Supreme Court Law was unconstitutional.

Petitioner Maulana Farras stated that the article had led to actual constitutional damage because the Petitioners didn’t receive benefits and legal certainty over the re-enactment of the article, which had actually been revoked by the Supreme Court. If the Petitioners filed for a judicial review petition to the Supreme Court and the petition was granted, there was a possibility that the content of the revoked article or paragraph be re-enacted shortly.

He revealed that on May 5, 2020 the president stipulated the Presidential Regulation No. 64 of 2020 on the Amendment to the Presidential Regulation No. 82 of 2018 on Health Insurance (Perpres No. 64 of 2020), which annulled the Supreme Court Decision Number 24/P/PTS/III/2020/2020/7P/HUM/2020, which revoked Perpres No. 75 of 2019 on Health Insurance. He said that the perpres came into force only two months after the Supreme Court Decision was pronounced.

"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," he stressed. It has also led to a public opinion that the Supreme Court’s decisions do not have final legal force as articles, paragraphs, or provisions that have been revoked can be re-enacted and the people cannot challenge it as the Supreme Court’s decisions don’t have final legal force. It has also led to convoluted judicial process, which is against the principles of simple, swift, and cost-effective judicial process.

Therefore, the Petitioners the article 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.” 

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/1/2020 15:47 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.

---