Chief Justice Anwar Usman, Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, and the Constitutional Justices speaking at a constitution discussion at Hasanuddin University, Makassar, South Sulawesi, Friday, (10/29/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Friday, October 29, 2021 | 17:10 WIB

MAKASSAR, Public Relations—All nine constitutional justices attended a constitution discussion on “Getting to Know the Constitutional Court” at Hasanuddin University (Unhas), Makassar, South Sulawesi on Friday morning, October 29, 2021. The event is part of the inauguration of the mini courtroom for remote hearing, a collaboration between the university and the Constitutional Court (MK).

The constitutional justices talked about the Court and its authorities. Chief Justice Anwar Usman said it was the first event where all nine constitutional justices convened. “Usually not all can attend. This is an extraordinary [moment]. This shows that we are very concerned about the enforcement of the Constitution and law in the Republic of Indonesia,” he said.

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto expressed his excitement to visit the university with the other eight constitutional justices. “It is difficult for all nine constitutional justices to convene in the courtroom at plenary hearings since each one has [our] own duties, etc.,” he said.

Justice Aswanto then talked about the Constitutional Court, which is tasked with reviewing laws against the 1945 Constitution, while the Supreme Court review regulations under the law. The deputy chief justice believes that when constitutional rights are violated, citizens can file a petition to the Constitutional Court. “It is because one of the Court’s functions is to guard so that constitutional rights are not disregarded,” he said.

During the Q&A session, the university’s student Muhammad Iksan asked the nine constitutional justices of the Court’s authority to settle regional head election (pilkada) disputes on the certification of the KPU (General Elections Commission) recapitulation results and the justices’ opinions on the special judicial body to handle those disputes.

Another student asked the factors that determine whether a judicial review petition is granted or rejected. A third student asked about cases that the Court has ruled but which are disregarded by the executors of the law.

In response to the first question, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said the Constitutional Court handles pilkada cases temporarily. He stressed that it is the legislatures’ prerogative to determine whether the Court will continue doing so or not.

“The Constitutional Court recommended that [the authority] not be given to the Court, but the legislatures insisted on it temporarily. How long? I cannot say for sure and we will not discuss it,” he asserted.

In response to the third question, Justice Saldi said this is no longer under the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction but that of law enforcers. He also revealed that if any norm that the Court has declared unconstitutional was validated and petitioned in the Constitutional Court, there is ground for the Court to revoke it once again.

“In our decisions we have annulled certain norms or articles, which are then validated by the legislatures. If they are then petitioned, the Court could revoke them. [They must be petitioned again with new arguments. The Court has a duty to rule [on them]. Aside from that, it is under the jurisdictions of law enforcers,” he stressed.

Constitutional Court’s Authorities

Next, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo explained that the Constitutional Court’s authority to handle pilkada cases is the only one not derived from the 1945 Constitution but from Article 157 paragraph (3) of Law No. 10 of 2016.

“What Iksan said was accurate; [this authority] is temporary until the formation of a special judicial body. So the judicial body in question is the prerogative of the legislatures. What kind of body is appropriate is [a topic for] a long discussion,” he said.

Justice Suhartoyo also said that candidate pairs, election observers, and single tickets can file a pilkada petition. This is regulated in Article 158.

He added that the Court is authorized to rule on disputes over the vote acquisition that the KPU certifies. However, its authority is not limited to that. Any argument on structured, systematic, and massive (TSM) electoral violations can also be considered. He revealed that there have been many electoral violations outside of the certification of the vote acquisition. Therefore, through its decisions, the Court has avoided only examining formal requirements laid out in Article 158 of Law No. 10 of 2016.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/2/2021 11:54 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.

---