---

The Petitioner’s attorney Dwi Ratri attending the judicial review hearing of the Protocol Law virtually, Monday (26/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the judicial review petition of Law No. 9 of 2010 on Protocols on Monday, October 26, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. The petition No. 72/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Abu Bakar, a daily worker and resident of Kebon Sirih, Menteng, Central Jakarta.

The Petitioner, daily worker Abu Bakar, challenges Article 9 paragraph (1) letters e and m of the Protocol Law. As a voter in the 2019 legislative election, the Petitioner objects to the article, which doesn’t explain the House Speaker’s seating arrangement at state and official events, which isn’t regulated in the House Regulation No. 1 of 2014 on the House’s Code of Conduct. This, he said, leads to uncertainty as it doesn’t reflect the collective authority and collegiality of House leaders. He believes that this, in turn, will harm the honor and dignity of the House. 

Also read: Worker Challenges House Leaders’ Positions at State Events   

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, September 10, 2020, the Court had made recommendations to revise the petition according to the standard format as stipulated in Article 31 paragraphs (1) and 2 of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 5 paragraph (1) letters a, letter b, letter c, and d of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 06/PMK/2005 on the Procedural Law of the Judicial Review.

The Petitioner submitted a revised petition on September 23, 2020 to the Registrar’s Office, which was then examined at a hearing on September 24, 2020. At the petition revision hearing, the Principal Petitioner and his attorney who signed the petition were absent, but another attorney by the name of Dwi Ratri Mahanani, S.H. attended the hearing despite not signing both the initial and the revised petitions. At the hearing, the Court accepted the revised petition and approved the Petitioner’s evidence but didn’t hear the revisions to the petition as there was some doubt regarding the appointment of the new attorney.

Also read: Attorney of Petitioner of Protocol Law Not Authorized to Read Petition Revision 

The Court held an additional hearing on October 5, 2020 to confirm the additional attorney. The Petitioner didn’t attend the hearing but the first and second attorney did. The attorneys were given the floor to convey the revisions to the points of revision to the petition.

Also read: Petitioner Strengthens Argument of Petition on Protocol Law 

The Court observed that the Petitioner couldn’t elaborate on his qualification as petitioner, who is an individual citizen eligible to vote. He also positioned himself as if he was speaking on behalf of all Indonesian voters by arguing that his objection reflected the constitutional rights of all voters in Indonesia. “Therefore, the Petitioner didn’t clearly specify his legal standing and explain his constitutional loss,” said Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations.

According to the procedural law, one cannot represent others in a judicial review case without any power of attorney, except parents for the interest of their children who cannot legally act. The Petitioner also couldn’t explain the causal relationship between his alleged constitutional loss and the norm being petitioned, which was related to the House Speaker’s seating arrangement at state and official events in the state’s capital. Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner didn’t have the legal standing in the a quo petition and the Court dismissed the petition.

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Fitri Yuliana
Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/28/2020 14:56 WIB

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

---