The Petitioners and their legal counsels conveying their arguments at the formal judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) virtually, Thursday (3/24/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Thursday, March 24, 2022 | 15:46 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) was challenged again in the Constitutional Court (MK) both materially and formally. The case No. 34/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by 21 Petitioners, including Azyumardi Azra, Din Syamsudin, and Didin S. Damanhuri. They believe the law to be formally defective.

The Petitioners believe that the formation process of the IKN Law, which only considered inputs from certain stakeholders but not those that reflect the Petitioners’ aspirations, had impaired their right to information and to develop themselves and their social environment. They also asserted that guarantee of acknowledgement and protection of their rights, legal certainty, and equality before the law had not been fulfilled due to the enactment of the a quo law.

“Relating to the material judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2022, the Petitioners feel disadvantaged by the promulgation of Article 1 paragraph (2) and paragraph (8), Article 4, and Article 5 paragraph (4) of Law No. 3 of 2022. Those articles are against Article 18 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 18A paragraph (1), and Article 18B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because of the failure to fulfill acknowledgement and protection of their rights, legal certainty, and equality before the law,” counsel Ibnu Sina said before the panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto.

Relating to the formal judicial review, the Petitioners argued that Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution provide opportunities for citizens to participate in government. If the formation of laws and regulations reduces community participation to debate and discuss the contents, then it can be said to have violated the people’s sovereignty.

Relating to the material judicial review, the Petitioners believe that the IKN Law stipulates that the Nusantara capital city will be a special regional government equal to a province and carry out government affairs in the Nusantara capital city, organized by the authority of Nusantara capital city as a ministry-level institution that organizes regional government.

The Petitioners believe such a format to be in violation of Article 18 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which stipulates that the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia be divided into provinces and the provinces be divided into regencies and cities, where each province, regency, and city has a regional administration.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the formation of the IKN Law unconstitutional and not legally binding. “[The Petitioners request that the Court] declare Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 1 paragraph (8), Article 4, and Article 5 paragraph (4) of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (State Gazette No. 41 and the Supplement to the State Gazette No. 6766) unconstitutional and not legally binding,” Ibnu Sina stressed.

Separate Petitions

Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto stated that the Petitioners’ judicial review petition of the IKN Law is both formal and material.

“However, the Constitutional Court’s decision stipulates that the formal and material judicial review be separated. So, if [the Petitioners] wish for the review to take place simultaneously, separate the formal and material judicial review [petitions],” he advised.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul added, “If the formal judicial review petition is granted, what will be left? There will be no more issue materially. If the formal [petition] is granted, there is no need to challenge the material. That is the principle. So, if [you] wish for simultaneous reviews, we cannot examine the material.”

He also observed that the petition had not follow the format referred to in Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021. “The format is still upside-down, the legal standing first, then the Court’s authority. It should be systematic, starting from the Petitioners’ profiles, the Court’s authority, the [Petitioners’] legal standing, the posita, and the petitum,” he explained.

Next, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh left it to the Petitioners whether to continue the petition as is or to revise it by prioritizing the formal judicial review, although there is a deadline for it.

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

Translation uploaded on 3/25/2022 15:01 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.

---