Chief Justice Anwar Usman with Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh entering the courtroom for the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, Wednesday (3/23/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, March 23, 2022 | 15:19 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights on Wednesday, March 23, 2022. The case No. 30/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Achmad Kholidin, a law lecturer of the Jakarta Muhammadiyah University, and Tasya Nabila, an activist affiliated with the nongovernmental organization (NGO) Lentera HAM. They challenge Article 83 paragraph (1), Article 85 paragraph (1), Article 86, and Article 87 paragraph (2) letter d of the Human Rights Law.

At the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Andi Winanto asserted that Article 83 paragraph (1) had led to legal uncertainty due to multiple interpretations of the clause “The National Commission on Human Rights comprises 35 (thirty-five) members.” The Petitioners asserted the provision was unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted to mean “The National Commission on Human Rights comprises nine members selected by the House of Representatives and certified by a presidential decree.”

In addition, the Petitioners stressed that the phrase “based on the recommendation of the National Commission on Human Rights” was unconstitutional. “At the moment, the Petitioners are actively monitoring the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) in the selection process, as a manifestation of the a quo law,” Andy said.

However, in practice, Andy added, the Petitioners were hindered by the a quo article while, according to the 1945 Constitution, citizens have equal opportunities in government and equal recognition before the law in participating in the election of the chair and/or members of Komnas HAM.

Andy also said that Article 83 paragraph (1) is related to the articles challenges by the Petitioners, who have made various efforts to encourage transparent, honest, and fair election process, which has been hampered by the a quo article. On this basis, the Petitioners assume that they have suffered constitutional impairment as a result of the norm.

Consequently, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court grant the petition and declare Article 83 paragraph (1), Article 85 paragraph (1), Article 86, and Article 87 paragraph (2) letter d of the Human Rights Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioners to revise the petition by elaborating their constitutional impairment. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh requested the Petitioners to elaborate the norms that they challenged. “So, if there are touchstones for only one norm, what is the constitutional impairment due to the norm?” he asked.

Before concluding the hearing, Chief Justice Anwar Usman informed the Petitioners that they had 14 weekdays to revise the petition. The petition should be received by the Registrar’s Office by Tuesday, April 5, 2022, two hours before the hearing at the latest.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 3/24/2022 09:19 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.

---