Viktor Santoso Tandiasa representing the National Axis for State Sovereignty (PNKN) at the formal judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law), Wednesday (3/16/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Wednesday, March 16, 2022 | 16:01 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—A month after its promulgation, Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) was challenged formally in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday afternoon, March 16, 2022. The Petitioners of case No. 25/PUU-XX/2022 are Abdullah Hehamahua, Marwan Batubara, Muhyidin Junaidi, and other members of the National Axis for State Sovereignty (PNKN). They are individual citizens who claimed potential constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the IKN Law.

Legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa said that the Petitioners could not provide their inputs and criticism during the formation of the IKN Law, as it was formed in only 42 days. The hasty process made it lack public participation, which could potentially lead to horizontal conflicts.

In addition, Tandiasa added, the Petitioners are taxpaying citizens who have rights and have exercised their voting rights in the election of DPR (House of Representatives), DPD (Regional Representatives Council), and the president-vice president as the holder of sovereignty. As such, they have met the requirements for a formal judicial review of a law against the 1945 Constitution, as the Court stressed in Decision No. 27/PUU-VII/2009. The taxpayer status as a requirement to file the petition was affirmed by the Court in Decision No. 022/PUU-XII/2014, following the adages “no taxation without participation” and vice versa “no participation without tax.”

“The [formation] of the IKN [Law] did not meet the lawmaking provisions based on Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution, to which the norm is delegated, and was in violation of Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as well as Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 6 letters a, e, g, and s of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking,” Tandiasa said before the panel chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

He added that the IKN Law was not formed systematically—from development planning documents, regulatory planning, financial planning, to development implementation—thus, flouting the principle of clear purpose.

“Therefore, it can be said that the IKN Law is against the lawmaking principles, especially the principle of clear purpose as referred to in Article 5 letter a of Law No. 12 of 2011,” Tandiasa emphasized.

Justices’ Advice

As Tandiasa asserted that the Petitioners would like to challenge the law formally, the Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asked, “I request the Petitioners’ affirmation, is it a formal or material judicial review [petition]? There are fundamental differences between [them]. However, it could be both formal and material.”

In addition, he advised the Petitioners to study the format of the formal judicial review petition from the Constitutional Court Regulation and to mention the State Gazette in the revised petition.

Justice Arief also stated that the Petitioners’ legal standing need not be elaborated as the case is of formal judicial review. “In the formal judicial review, what is important is how the Petitioners can elaborate the causal connection between the Petitioners and the law in question,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul observed the ambiguity of the Petitioners’ status within the National Axis for State Sovereignty (PNKN). He advised that they clarify in the petition whether it is a forum of advocates or for the Petitioners. “This must be explained in detail by the Petitioners,” he said.

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

Translation uploaded on 3/17/2022 10:24 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.

---