The Petitioners’ legal counsel, Denny Ardiansyah, reading out the merit of the petition virtually at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village, Monday (1/17/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Monday, January 17, 2022 | 14:39 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—A number of village chiefs and apparatuses filed a judicial review petition of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, January 17, 2022. The Petitioners of the case No. 3/PUU-XX/2022 argue that Articles 25, Article 26, Article 27, Article 31, Article 33, Article 34, Article 35, Article 36, Article 37, Article 38, Article 39 paragraph (1), Article 40, Article 41, Article 42, Article 43, Article 44, Article 45, Article 46, Article 47, Article 48, Article 49, Article 50, Article 51, and Article 53 are unconstitutional.

Legal counsel Denny Ardiansyah, who represented Endang Kusnandar, Mohammad Abdurrahman, Akhib Musadad, and the other Petitioners in several regions in Indonesia, said that the reconstructed Village Law did not differentiate between a regular village and a customary (adat) one when, in fact, a customary village has customary influences on the local governments, the management of resources, and the social life of the people. The Petitioners believed the Village Law had misinterpreted the village’s position and made all villages administrative ones.

The Petitioners also argued that the election of village chiefs were regulated to a limited degree that villages lost their distinct characteristics in the democratic model. They also challenged the provision of the dismissal of village chiefs and the normative regulation of village apparatus, which led to confusion in villages that did not recognize such positions.

“In the petitum, we request that the Court grant the entire petition and declare the 25 articles to review in violation of Article 18 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 18B paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (2), as well as Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution,” Denny said virtually before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the case, Justice Wahiduddin requested that the Petitioners strengthen their legal standing as village chiefs, village apparatuses, and individual citizens. He also said that it would be imperative for them to strengthen the 25 norms with touchstones so that the contrast and their constitutional impairment would be apparent.

“In many of these articles, the contrast does not concern [general] impairment, so it needs clear elaboration of the articles to review in relation to the touchstones. [Explain] the impairment, not just the assumption,” he said.

Next, Justice Foekh said the Petitioners should observe the requirements for formal and material judicial review in the Constitutional Court following the latest regulations. He also asked the village chiefs to include their appointment letters.

“Do not forget to detail [your] constitutional impairment as village chiefs, village apparatuses, and individual citizens, both potential and factual,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Justice Enny advised the Petitioners to improve their elaboration on their legal standing. “Think over whether the 25 articles are unconstitutional. If so, what is the constitutionality issue, not the implementation issue. In addition, the Petitioners are responsible for including arguments for why each of those articles petitioned is unconstitutional,” she stressed.

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

Translation uploaded on 01/18/2022 09:11 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.

---