Junior Researcher M. Lutfi Chakim giving a presentation to participants of Australian Consortium for ‘In-Country’ Indonesian Studies virtually, Thursday (1/13/2022) from the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, January 13, 2022 | 15:43 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—A virtual field trip of the Australian Consortium for ‘In-Country’ Indonesian Studies (ACICIS) in the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (MKRI) took place on Thursday, January 13, 2022. Junior Researcher M. Lutfi Chakim welcomed 35 students and 5 staff of ACICIS virtually and gave a presentation on “The Organization, Authorities, and Decisions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court.”

Lutfi explained the Indonesian legal system, which is influenced by Islamic law, customary law and local laws, and the law left behind by the Dutch colonial, which occupied the country for three centuries and a half. “The legal system of Indonesia is, in fact, very complex,” he said at the beginning of the presentation.

He said Islamic influences through the Quran and hadith are applied in Aceh Province. This includes family law, civil law, courts, education, etc., which are further regulated under the Aceh Qanun, a statutory regulation similar to a provincial regulation.

“The Indonesian legal system is also influenced by local and traditional laws, and is based on the norms of the local people. Customary laws in several regions [extend to] family law, inheritance law, and agriculture law,” he explained.

In addition, Indonesia is still using the Criminal Code and the Civil Code that are legacy of the Dutch colonial.

Lutfi then explained the hierarchy of legislation in Indonesia: the 1945 Constitution, the People’s Consultative Assembly Decrees (TAP MPR), government regulations in lieu of laws (perppu), government regulations, presidential regulations, provincial regulations, followed by regency/city regulations.

Judicial Review Model

Lutfi also explained the general models of judicial review of laws: decentralized and centralized. The decentralized model, known as the American model, is adopted by the United States, Australia, Canada, and the Philippines. In this model, the functions of the Constitutional Court are carried out by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in the centralized model, the Constitutional Court is separate from the Supreme Court. This Kelsenian model is adopted by Austria, Germany, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, and Indonesia. The decisions of the Constitutional Court in this model are erga omnes or applying to all.

MKRI’s Jurisdiction

Next, Lutfi explained the MKRI’s jurisdiction. Its main authority is reviewing laws against the Constitution, deciding on authority disputes between state institutions, deciding on the dissolution of political parties, and deciding on disputes over general election results. It is also obligated to decide on the House’s opinion on an alleged violation of law or disgraceful act committed by the president and/or vice president.

In addition, the MKRI also serves as the guardian and final interpreter of the Constitution, the protector of human rights, the guardian of democracy, the protector of the citizens’ constitutional rights, and the protector of human rights.

Lutfi revealed some of the Court’s landmark decisions: No. 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003 on the privatization of electricity, No. 011/PUU-III/2005 on the allocation of 20% of the state budget for education, No. 013-022/PUU-IV/2006 on defamation against the president and the vice president, No. 2-3/PUU-V/2007 on the constitutionality of the death penalty, No. 29/PUU-V/2007 on film censorship, No. 13/PUU-VI/2008 on education budget, and No. 46/PUU-VIII/2010 on the protection of children born out of wedlock.

He went on to explain the proceedings in the MKRI, which start with a panel preliminary examination hearing, to check the completeness and clarity of the material of the petition in a panel hearing presided over by a panel of three constitutional justices. The petition is to be revised and completed within 14 workdays. Because it is not a conflict of interest, the law mandated the Court through a panel of justices to give recommendations to the petitioner to complete and/or revise their petition.

The preliminary hearing is followed by a petition revision hearing. If the justice deliberation meeting decides that the case continues, it will advance to the plenary examination hearings, where the justices hear the testimonies of the Government, the House of Representatives (DPR), witnesses, and experts. Then the case is discussed at another justice deliberation meeting, then concludes with a ruling hearing.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 01/14/2022 14:13 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.

---