---

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih offering advice to revise the petition at the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court, Thursday (19/11/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Article 87 of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court virtually on Thursday, November 19, 2020. The petition No. 97/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by advocates Suhardi and Linda Yendrawati Puspa.

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.”

Both Petitioners felt aggrieved by the enactment of the article, which they deem not in accordance with the principles of a law-based state in providing legal protection and certainty, leading to the violation of their constitutional rights. As part of the law enforcement and citizens who intended to commit to the enforcement of the law, they felt harmed by the article.

“The a quo article in this petition has harmed the Petitioners’ constitutional right to acknowledgment, guarantee, protection, fair legal certainty, and due process of the law, which is granted by Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” said Ferdian Sutanto, one of the Petitioners’ attorneys.

Article 87 of the Constitutional Court Law harmed the Petitioners because it made them feel that their security and ease in working as advocates were reduced. However, they understand that by declaring it in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding, there would be a legal vacuum. Therefore, in order to overcome it, they requested that the Court declare the a quo norm conditionally constitutional and interpret it in a way as to avoid other violations. In order to achieve fair legal certainty, they requested that the Court declare Article 87 of Law No. 7 of 2020 unconstitutional and not legally binding, and Article 87 of the Constitutional Court Law conditionally constitutional as long as it is interpreted “a fit and proper test as well as physical and mental health assessments shall be conducted every 5 (five) years objectively by a committee that is formed by the Constitutional Court’s ethics council.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioners to follow the standard petition format in the Constitutional Court regulations. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised them to elaborate the petition clearly. “Detail the norm to review and the touchstones. You must make an argument on the contradiction between the norm being reviewed and the touchstones. In addition, then posita and petitum must correlate. With a good format, we will understand what the Petitioners are asking for,” she explained.

Last, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat advised the Petitioner to revise most of the petition. “Your petition is vague. In order to get to the subject matter, the most important thing to revise is the legal standing,” he stressed.

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

Translation uploaded on 11/23/2020 12:26 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.

---