Legal counsel Ilhamsyah conveying arguments for case No. 31/PUU-XX/2022 at the judicial review hearing of the Regional Government Law, Wednesday (3/23/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.
Wednesday, March 23, 2022 | 15:47 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 23 of 2014 on the Regional Government was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, March 23, 2022. The case No. 31/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by East Kalimantan DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) member Hasanuddin, who challenges Article 112 paragraph (4) of the Regional Government Law, which reads, “The chairperson and deputy chairperson of the Provincial Regional Legislative Council shall be inaugurated by a Ministerial Decree.”
The Petitioner is a member of the East Kalimantan DPRD from the Golkar faction. In his petition, he argued that factual and potential impairment according to logical reasoning can certainly occur as he had not been inaugurated as chair of the East Kalimantan DPRD by the Minister of Home Affairs to replace H. Makmur.
The Petitioner believed there to be legal uncertainty H. Makmur, East Kalimantan DPRD chair for 2019-2024, who had been dismissed by the Decree of the Chair and Secretary-General of the Golkar central executive board (DPP) No. B-600/Golkar/VI/2021 on the Interim Change of Leadership of the East Kalimantan Province DPRD dated June 16, 2021; the Decree of the East Kalimantan Province DPRD No. 36 of 2021 dated November 2, 2021; the Letter of the East Kalimantan Province DPRD No. 160/II.I-1407/Set-DPRD addressed to the Minister of Home Affairs through the East Kalimantan Governor dated November 16, 2021 regarding the Proposal to Replace the Chair and Certify a Candidate for Substitute Chairperson of the East Kalimantan Province DPRD for the remainder of the 2019-2024 term.
“The Petitioner’s legitimacy as the chair of the East Kalimantan DPRD seems to have been ignored by H. Makmur, who is still the chair of the East Kalimantan DPRD, is still acting as the chair of the East Kalimantan DPRD, and is still signing various DPRD letters for various events, and so on,” Ilhamsyah explained before Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto (panel chair).
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner request that the Court declare Article 112 paragraph (4) of Law No. 23 of 2014 unconstitutional and not legally binding if the phrase “inaugurated by a Ministerial Decree” not be interpreted as “a formal decision based on the authority of the minister and is declarative by requiring to follow up on the administrative process on the decision on the privilege of political parties based on the order of the most seats in the Provincial DPRD as a result of the election vote acquisition in determining the leadership of the Provincial DPRD.”
Concrete Case
Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih observed that the petition was quite orderly and complete, although several things needed to be improved. She suggested the Petitioner observe the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the format of judicial review petition, starting the petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, the petitioner’s legal standing, the posita, and the petitum.
“Your petition concerns a concrete case. Since it concerns a concrete case and you have outlined the conditions for constitutional impairment, this is what you should elaborate because you [request judicial review] of the norm. The Constitutional Court has never resolved concrete cases but it reviews norms,” she said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo noted that the petition was simple and the material easy to understand. “If you look at the Petitioner’s petition, it is indeed simple and the Court is able to understand what the Petitioner wants,” he said.
However, he did not find any explanation on the norms regarding the Minister of Home Affairs’ approval of the Petitioner’s inauguration as the chair of the East Kalimantan DPRD and the evidence whether or not the minister can approve it. “We haven’t got a clear picture of whether or not the Minister of Home Affairs agreed,” he said.
Next, Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto (panel chair) commented, “Because the petition is verbose, the meaning can confuse us. What you want to convey became out of focus.”
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : M. Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 3/24/2022 13:07 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.
Wednesday, March 23, 2022 | 15:47 WIB 200