Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih at the ruling hearing of Law No. 11 of 2019 on the National System of Science and Technology, Wednesday (12/15/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, December 15, 2021 | 15:50 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was declared conditionally unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (MK) through Decision No. 91/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday, November 25, 2021. The Court declared the petition by researcher Heri Susetyo inadmissible. This was reiterated at a ruling hearing for case No. 46/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday afternoon, December 15, 2021.

“Based on the verdict of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 46/PUU-XIX/2021, Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation has been declared conditionally unconstitutional and the decision is legally binding since it was pronounced. Therefore, the material judicial review petition filed by the a quo Petitioner is irrelevant to be reviewed further, because the object of the petition filed by the Petitioner is not in line with the substance of the law it requests to review. Moreover, taking into account the principles of swift, simple, and low-cost justice, based on the provision of Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law, there is no longer any urgency for the Court to hear statements from the parties as referred to in Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law. Therefore, the material judicial review petition of Law No. 11 of 2020 must be declared as having lost its object,” said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reading out the Court’s legal considerations.

Also read: Provision on Integration of Research Agencies to BRIN Challenged

Justice Enny added that in relation to the formal judicial review ruling on the Job Creation Law, the Court at a follow-up examination hearing on December 7 had asked the Petitioner to confirm the continuation of the a quo petition. The Petitioner had left it for the Court to decide.

“[The Court] adjudicates, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman (plenary chairman) reading out the verdict in the plenary courtroom before the litigants, who attended the hearing virtually from their respective residences.

Also read:

Researcher Revises Petition on Provision on Integration of Research Agencies to BRIN

House and Govt Request Hearing on Sisnas Iptek Law Be Delayed

The Petitioner, who is a researcher, believes his constitutional rights have been harmed because the word ‘integrated’ in the a quo law is ambiguous. It is not clear whether it 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.

The Petitioner argues that 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. Therefore, 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: the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN).

Also read: Job Creation Law Conditionally Unconstitutional, Researcher Continues to Challenge BRIN Integration

He also argues that the word ‘integrated’ 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).

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/16/2021 11:12 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.

---