---

Panel preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of the Human Rights Law, Monday (23/11/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights (HAM) virtually on Monday, November 23, 2020. The hearing of case No. 98/PUU-XVIII/2020 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Manahan M. P. Sitompul. The petition was filed by Alamsyah Panggabean, who challenges Article 15 of the Human Rights Law, which reads, “Everyone has the right to develop himself by individually and collectively protecting their rights, in the interests of developing their society, nation, and state.”

Panggabean referred to Article 13 paragraph (1) of Law No. 38 of 2007 of the Formation of Padang Lawas Regency in North Sumatera Province, which reads, “The filling of the vacancies of the Regional Legislative Council of Padang Lawas Regency for the first time shall be carried out by means of a determination based on the balance of the results of the votes acquired by the political parties participating in the 2014 General Election that was held in South Tapanuli Regency.”

“On the basis of this, the Petitioner requests to be given equal treatment as regulated in Article 13 paragraph (1) of Law No. 38 of 2007, to be appointed as a DPRD member in order to achieve equality and justice for him as mandated by Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution,” Panggabean said virtually without legal counsel.

He said from a sociological standpoint, the formation of the Human Rights Law contains the hope that every human being think and act for common interests in the life of society, nation, and state. This is actually an affirmative action for everyone who wants to think and act for common interests and for the sake of upholding human rights for every citizen. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Court provide a regulation regarding the right to personal development as contained in Article 15 of the Human Rights Law, particularly the word "personally," to be defined as a Government Regulation.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioner to detail his specific, actual or potential, constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the a quo norm, since it relates to his legal standing to file the petition. Then, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih questioned whether the Petitioner challenged Article 15 of the Human Rights Law or anything else. She also questioned the main point of the contention, i.e. the Petitioner’s request to be declared a DPRD member. She also questioned whether the Petitioner questioned the entire article or any phrase therein. “Upon observation of the petition, what was requested to be interpreted is a phrase, but there is a request that the a quo article be revoked. So, which one is the request?” she asked.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra asked the Petitioner to reconsider his petition, because the Constitutional Court is not authorized to declare the role of a citizen in a law or regulations under it. The Petitioner was to revise the petition and submit it by Monday, December 7, 2020 at 14:00 to the Registrar’s Office. 

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Fitri Yuliana
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/24/2020 17:56 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.

---