Chief Justice Anwar Usman and Chief Registrar Muhidin at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2009 on the National Flag, Language, Emblem, and Anthem, Tuesday (3/29/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, March 30, 2022 | 00:11 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) decided that the judicial review petition of Law No. 24 of 2009 on the National Flag, Language, Emblem, and Anthem (BBLNLK Law) was inadmissible. The petition was filed by Ludjiono, a retired civil servant at the Health Office of Situbondo Regency, East Java.

“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said plenary chair Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict of Decision No. 12/PUU-XX/2022 at a ruling hearing on Tuesday, March 29, 2022 virtually.

In its legal considerations, the Court stated that it had carried out a preliminary hearing on February 22. Based on Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law, the panel of justices had offered advice to the Petitioner to revise the petition and elaborate matters in it following the format as regulated in Article 31 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the Procedural on Judicial Review in the Constitutional Court. It had also advised the Petitioner to revise the unusual petitum where the Petitioner requested the government for compensation.

Also read:

Court Delays Hearing on Law on National Flag, Language, Emblem, and Anthem

Petitioner: Bahasa Indonesia Undefined in BBLNLK Law 

Petitioner of BBLNLK Law Revises Petition

Then, at the petition revision hearing on March 7, the Petitioner did not elaborate the petition following the format—title, the petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, the petitioner’s legal standing. He only elaborated the background of the petition and the petitum. The Petitioner’s petition did not follow the format regulated in Article 31 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 2 of 2021, as he elaborated the posita and petitum straight away. Meanwhile, the petition’s title, the Petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, and the Petitioner’s legal standing in the initial petition were not added with the revisions to the petition. The Petitioner also failed to elaborate the contradiction between the articles petitioned and the touchstones.

As such, after observing the revised petition carefully, the Court could not understand the background to the petition in relation to the petitum, where the Petitioner requested that the articles be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding. Therefore, there was no doubt for the Court to declare that the petition was obscure.

Based on the aforementioned considerations, although the Court was authorized to adjudicate the a quo case, since the petition was obscure, the Court did not consider it further.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya2Vfcr6gbs 

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/5/2022 09:30 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.

---