Constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review of Law No. 11 of 2019 on the National System of Science and Technology as amended by Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Tuesday (9/21/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 | 17:22 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—On the 26th commemoration of the National Technology Awakening Day on August 10, 2021, President Joko Widodo requested that the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) consolidate and integrate the national research and innovation immediately as stipulated in Article 48 paragraph (1) of Law No. 11 of 2019 on the National System of Science and Technology (Sisnas Iptek) and its elucidation.
Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Sisnas Iptek Law reads, “To carry out integrated Research, Development, Study, and Application, as well as Invention and Innovation, a national research and innovation agency shall be formed.” Meanwhile, its elucidation reads, “What is meant by ‘integrated’ is an effort to direct and synergize, among other things, the preparation of plans, programs, budgets, and Resources of Science and Technology in the fields of Research, Development, Study, and Application to produce Inventions and Innovations as scientific foundations in the formulation and stipulation of national development policies.”
Two researchers filed a material judicial review petition in case No. 46/UU-XIX/2021 against the integration of research agencies in those the two norms. One of them is Heru Susetyo from the Center for Research and Publication of the Law Faculty of the University of Indonesia, who is also a member of the Regional Research Council of DKI Jakarta Province.
At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday afternoon, September 21, 2021, the Petitioners were represented by counsels Zainal Arifin Husein and colleagues. They requested the material judicial review of the word “integrated” in Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Sisnas Iptek Law and the phrase “among other things” in its elucidation. They believe that their constitutional rights have been harmed by the enactment of Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Sisnas Iptek Law as amended by Article 121 of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation because the word “integrated” in the a quo law is ambiguous. As a consequence, there is legal certainty because it is not clear whether the word “integrated” only concerns coordination of the preparation of plans, programs, budgets, and resources of science and technology in the fields of research, development, study, and application to produce inventions and innovations as scientific foundations in the formulation and stipulation of national development policies or the integration of the institutions.
“Article 42 of Law No. 11 of 2019 as a description or derivative of Article 13 paragraph (2) of Law No. 11 of 2019 clearly states that science and technology institutions consist of: a. research and development institutions, research and application institutions, universities, business entities, and supporting institutions. Referring to the provision of Article 42 in relation to coordination, the coordinated institutions are as stipulated in Article 42 of Law No. 11 of 2019,” Zainal said.
Therefore, he added, Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Sisnas Iptek Law as amended in Article 121 of the Job Creation Law in relation to the establishment of BRIN to carry out integrated research, development, study, and application, as well as inventions and innovations, the word “integrated” gives rise to various interpretations—whether it is interpreted as coordination so that the existence and function of the institution remains as Article 42 of the Sisnas Iptek Law or as the synthesis of various government research institutions into one—BRIN.
BRIN as Coordinator
The Petitioners also argue that the phrase “integrated” in Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Sisnas Iptek Law as amended by Article 121 of the Job Creation Law cannot be separated from the previous articles—Articles 13, 42, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 71, and 79. Thus, it can be concluded that the central government only serves as a coordinator. This is because the Sisnas Iptek Law explicitly states that BRIN is the central agency for research, development, study, and application as well as inventions and innovations. Thus, BRIN is a body that coordinates various institutions that carry out those activities, such as BATAN (the National Nuclear Energy Agency), BPPT (the Agency for the Assessment and Application of Technology), LIPI (the Indonesian Institute of Sciences), and LAPAN (the National Institute of Aeronautics and Space of Indonesia).
Therefore, the Petitioners allege, BRIN should coordinate the duties outside of research and innovation, such as the preparation of plans, programs, budgets, and resources of science and technology in the fields of research, development, study, and application to produce inventions and innovations that has so far scattered.
The Petitioners believe the phrase “integrated” in Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Sisnas Iptek Law as amended by Article 121 of the Job Creation Law has been made worse by the elucidation as amended by the Elucidation to Article 121 of the Job Creation Law on the phrase “among other things,” leading to ambiguity, which in turns led to the integration of BATAN, BPPT, LIPI, and LAPAN into one agency.
For that reason, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the phrase “integrated” in Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Sisnas Iptek Law and the phrase “among other things” in its elucidation as amended by Article 121 of the Job Creation Law and its elucidation not in conflict with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and legally binding, insofar as interpreted as the national research and innovation agency only prepare and plan the programs, budgets, and resources of science and technology in the fields of research, development, study, and application.
“Or declare the phrase “among other things” in the Elucidation to Article 48 paragraph (1) of Law No. 11 of 2019 on the National System of Science and Technology as amended by Article 121 of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation and its elucidation in conflict with Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding,” Zainal stressed.
Justices’ Advice
In response to the petition, panel chair Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioners to make the object clear and not vague. The articles to review should not change and the Petitioners’ identity as lecturer or researcher must be clear and their appointment letter (SK) be mentioned. The Petitioners should also explain their constitutional loss and affirm the contradiction between the norms and the 1945 Constitution. Justice Enny also requested that they entitle their petitum.
Meanwhile, Justice Saldi Isra observed that the Petitioners requested the judicial review of Article 48 paragraph (1) of the Sisnas Iptek Law as well as the phrase “among other things” in its elucidation.
“Have the Petitioners elaborate the reasons to review Article 48 paragraph (1) of Law No. 11 of 2019, especially the phrase ‘among other things’?” he asked. He also asked the Petitioners to add another petitioner who is a civil servant (PNS) researcher.
Next, Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh examined the petition’s format and writing, including terms in a foreign language that must have been italicized and the footnote. He also advised that the Petitioners’ identity be matched with their KTP (ID card).
The panel of justices gave the Petitioners 14 weekdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Monday, October 14, 2021.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : M. Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 9/22/2021 09:48 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.
Tuesday, September 21, 2021 | 17:22 WIB 380