Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the material judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law, Tuesday (8/31/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, August 31, 2021 | 21:54 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The petition on the material judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2003 as amended by Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK).

“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition for its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices at the ruling hearing of the Decision No. 11/PUU-XIX/2021 on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 in the plenary courtroom.

The petition was filed by contract teacher Herifuddin Daulay, who challenged Article 60 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, which reads, “No review may be conducted again on material substance of paragraphs, articles and/or a section of a law which has already been subjected to a review.”

In its legal considerations, the Court held that the Petitioner had misinterpreted the a quo norm because the requirements to file a petition as regulated in Article 60 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law was not an independent norm, but must be understood along with Article 78 of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021.

Only after a full understanding of the provision, Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul said, there would be no restriction to the Petitioner to file the judicial review petition of the material substance of paragraphs, articles and/or a section of a law that had already been subjected to a review in order to use his constitutional right to defend the nation as long as it met the requirements of the a quo norm. The norm has in fact been petitioned numerous times with different arguments. Therefore, the Court maintained that the Petitioner’s petition was legally groundless.

Also read: Initially Intended to Challenge Election Law, Petitioner Challenges Constitutional Court Law

Herifuddin Daulay, an Indonesian citizen, felt aggrieved by the enactment of Article 60 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, which reads, “No review may be conducted again on material substance of paragraphs, articles and/or a section of a law which has already been subjected to a review.”

He believed the a quo article had definitively limited a judicial review of laws that had been reviewed before. He affirmed his constitutional loss due to e enactment of Article 60 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law—which rules that the material substance of paragraphs, articles and/or a section of a law that has already been subjected to a review cannot be reviewed again—had limited his right and/or authority in defending his country.

He argued that, actually, because of the restriction, he or his offspring could be subjected to colonialism by other nations. To prevent that, he’d like to exercise his right and obligation to defend the nation by filing the judicial review petition so that the law be annulled or declared not legally binding. He believed that to prevent colonialism, he should be able to fulfill his obligation and constitutional right to defend the country.

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

Translation uploaded on 9/6/2021 10:17 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---