Entrepreneur Challenges 1945 Constitution with Concerns over Environmental Damage

Image not found

Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Suhartoyo at the judicial review hearing of Article 33 paragraph (3) and Article 37 of the 1945 Constitution, Wednesday (9/6/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Wednesday, June 9, 2021 | 15:08 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Entrepreneur Muhamad Taufiq challenges Article 33 paragraph (3) and Article 37 of the 1945 Constitution to the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing of the case No. 18/PUU-XIX/2021 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair), Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution reads, “The land and the waters as well as the natural riches therein are to be controlled by the state to be exploited to the greatest benefit of the people.” Article 37 reads, “Proposals to amend articles of the Constitution can be put on the agenda of the MPR session if submitted by at least 1/3 of the total number of members in the MPR.”

The Petitioner, who attended the hearing without any legal representation, alleges that Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution along the phrase “the greatest benefit of the people” and “the land and the waters as well as the natural riches therein are to be controlled by the state” as well as Article 37 along the phrase “Proposals to amend articles of the Constitution can be put on the agenda” violate the first, second, and fifth precepts of Pancasila.

He alleges that the articles do not apply to environmental crimes in Indonesia as they do not specify the legal punishments that can be imposed on environmental criminals.

“The articles cannot apply to cases such as actions that destroy the environment on a large scale in the name of prosperity, activities that cause pollution, waste that destroys the balance of nature for the benefit of groups, which trigger natural disasters,” he said virtually from his residence.

Justices’ Advice

Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioner with regard to the format of the petition, which covers the Court’s authority, the petitioner’s legal standing, the background to the petition, and the petitum. “Not closing. The petitum contains the things that are requested from this petition. There’s also a requirement of the statement in the state gazette,” he explained.

The Petitioner should also have explained the Court’s judicial review authority of laws against the 1945 Constitution. However, in his petition, the Petitioner requests the judicial review of the 1945 Constitution. “The Court cannot review the 1945 Constitution against the 1945 Constitution. The Court can only offer advice. Please reconsider the legal basis of the petition filing,” Justice Suhartoyo added.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised that the Petitioner revise his petition following the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the format of and reason to file a petition. He also recommended that the Petitioner quote the articles to review.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Wahiduddin reminded the Petitioner to revise the petition within 14 workdays until June 22, 2021 at 11:00 WIB to make it more comprehensible and comply with the required format. The revised petition is to be submitted to the Registrar’s Office.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            :  Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/10/2021 13:47 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.