---

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair) hearing the Petitioners at the preliminary judicial review hearing 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 judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court on Thursday, November 19, 2020. The petition No. 100/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by R. Violla Reinida Hafidz, M. Ihsan Mualana, Rahmah Mutiara, Korneles Materay, Beni Kurnia Ilahi, Giri Ahmad Taufik, and Putra Perdana Ahmad Saifulloh (PetitionersI I-VII).

One of the Petitioners’ attorneys, Kurnia Ramadhana, said his clients requested the formal judicial review of Article 15 paragraph (2) letters d and h, Article 18 paragraph (1), Article 19, Article 20, Article 23 paragraph (1). Article 59 paragraph (2), and Article 87 of the Constitutional Court Law. He said that the background is that lawmakers were deemed to have manipulated the law under the pretense of following up on the Constitutional Court’s decision. The revision of the law also violates the carry-over principle and the formation of good statutory laws. It also cannot be accounted for academically and is only a formality. The discussion was carried out behind closed doors without involving the public.

In the material judicial review, Kurnia added, the Petitioners challenge the limitation of the background of Supreme Court-nominated justice candidates in Article 15 paragraph (2) letter h of the Constitutional Court Law and the position of constitutional justice candidates as the representation of the nominating agencies. He also said that the Petitioners questioned that the constitutional interpretation of the recruitment system of constitutional justice in Article 19 of the Constitutional Court Law and its elucidation as well as Article 20 paragraphs (1) and (2). They also questioned the constitutional interpretation of the minimum age of constitutional justices and their term of service.

Petitioner I and attorney Violla Reinida said that the background of the petition stated that the drafting and discussion of the revision of the a quo article violated four lawmaking principles: clarity of purpose, efficiency and efficiency, clarity of formulation, and transparency. “In terms of the Constitutional Court’s needs, the question is, whether the currently serving constitutional justices need extension of tenure because Article 87 seems to refer to incumbent justices. This creates potential conflicts of interest between lawmakers and the constitutional justices,” she said about the petition by the Petitioners, who are researchers and lecturers and members of the Coalition to Save the Constitutional Court.

At the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Manahan M. P. Sitompul, Violla also said the revision was hasty and didn’t involve the public, not allowing for the people to offer their suggestions and inputs on the bill.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul stated that it must follow the standard format required. He also stressed that the Petitioners pay close attention to the gist of the petition. For example, the media articles included in the petition should be included only as evidence and not in the description of the petition. "Therefore, the petition will be simpler and easier to understand, and the theories and arguments for the formal and material review will be clear and detailed," he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams observed the Petitioner’s legal standing, especially their statuses as well as the attorneys’ who are members of the Coalition to Save the Constitutional Court. He advised them to clarify the principal petitioners, since one/a few are both petitioners and attorneys and one/e few of the attorneys are members of the coalition.

Next, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioners to elaborate in their posita when they found out about the academic text of the a quo law and whether the coalition was involved in discussing the bill. “If those documents could help convince the Court, please include the academic text,” he said.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Foekh informed that the Petitioners were to submit the revised petition by Wednesday, December 2, 2020 at 13:30 WIB to the Registrar’s Office, after which they will be informed about the following hearing.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Lambang T. S.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/23/2020 12:27 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.

---