---

The Petitioner’s attorney attending the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2020 Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court virtually, Tuesday (10/11/2020). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) held on Tuesday noon, November 10, 2020 under strict adherence to the COVID-19 health protocols. The petition No. 96/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by advocate Priyanto, who challenges Article 87 letters a and b of the Constitutional Court Law.

Article 87 letter a of the Constitutional Court Law reads, “The constitutional justices who currently serve as the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court shall continue to serve as the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court until their term of office ends based on the provisions of this Law.”

Article 87 letter b reads, “The constitutional justices who currently serve at the time this Law is promulgated shall be deemed to have fulfilled the requirements according to this Law and shall complete their term of service until the age of 70 (seventy) years, as long as the entire term of service does not exceed 15 (fifteen) years.”

The Petitioner aspires to be a constitutional justice as he has met the requirements laid in Article 15 of the Constitutional Court Law: is 55 years old, has earned a doctoral degree with an undergraduate degree in law, has had work experience in law of more than 15 years, and has a tax identification number (NPWP). He also aspires to be a chief/deputy chief constitutional justice. Therefore, he believes the provision of Article 87 letters a and b of the Constitutional Court Law has led to real constitutional impairment for him. The article stipulates that the term of constitutional justices who currently serve will extend until a total of 15 years, even if they are under 55 years of age. The article eliminated of the need to reappoint a constitutional justice who doesn’t meet the age requirement stipulated in Article 15 of the Constitutional Court Law. It also potentially keeps the Petitioner from obtaining fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law based on Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 87 letter b of the Constitutional Court Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted “The constitutional justices who currently serve must be 55 years of age.” He believes the norm should read, “The constitutional justices who currently serve at the time this Law is promulgated shall continue their term provided that they have fulfilled the requirements according to Article 15 of this Law and complete their term of service until the age of 70 (seventy) years, as long as the entire term of service does not exceed 15 (fifteen) years.”

The Petitioner believes Article 87 letter a of the Constitutional Court Law should be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted “The constitutional justices who currently serve as the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court shall end their term as the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court if a Chief Justice and a Deputy Chief Justice has been inaugurated based on the provision of Article 4 paragraph (3) of this Law.”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul observed the Petitioner’s legal standing and the background of the petition. He advised the Petitioner to elaborate on the contradiction between the articles petitioned and the 1945 Constitution. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh highlighted the petitum. He urged the Petitioner to consider the impact on the current constitutional justices if the a quo norm is annulled. He also pointed out that there hasn’t been any evidence that the Petitioner had applied for a constitutional justice position. He requested that the Petitioner elaborate on this. Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams urged that the Petitioner use logical reasoning in interpreting the norm and not make assumption that all constitutional justices would want to become a chief/deputy chief constitutional justice. 

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Muhammad Halim
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/14/2020 09:55 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.

---