Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat chairing the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital, Tuesday (4/19/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, April 19, 2022 | 15:44 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The relocation of the state capital received public backlash. This time, a driver of angkot public transit, Mulak Sihotang, challenged Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) in the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 47/PUU-XX/2022, which took place on Tuesday, April 19, 2022, was presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

The Petitioner appeared before the Court at the hearing without legal representation to request the judicial review of Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 1 paragraph (8), and Article 5 paragraph (4) of the IKN Law.

As a tax-paying citizen, Sihotang felt disadvantaged by the funding for the preparation, development, and transfer of the state capital and the administration of the Regional Government of the Special Capital Region, which is sourced from the state budget (APBN) and other legal sources in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. In addition, he argued the IKN authorities could collect special taxes and even regional taxes and regional retributions to apply mutatis mutandis as special taxes as referred to in the a quo Law. 

Violate Spatial Planning

The Petitioner believed the formation of the IKN Law, starting from planning, drafting, ratifying, to stipulating, should have been transparent and involved the community. However, he found that several procedures were violated in the formation the IKN Law: the Spatial Planning Law No. 7 of 2007, the Regional Regulation No. 10 of 2004 on the Master Plan for Spatial Planning for the Province of East Kalimantan, and the Regional Regulation No. 12 of 2010 on the Regional Spatial Planning of East Kalimantan Province. Thus, the IKN Law is formally defective.

In addition, the Petitioner asserted, had the Law followed the correct procedure, the spatial master plan for East Kalimantan Province should have been revised first to obtain recommendations for the preparation of a master plan for the new state capital. As such, the relocation would get permission from the regional government in advance.

“This IKN Law is against many people’s principle because [the new capital city] is far from the [current one], its [relocation] raised positive and negative [opinions] because the state capital will move and people can no longer see distant locations and this impair the citizens’ constitutional rights and hopefully the Court can send a letter to the House to revise the IKN Law,” the Petitioner said via video conference from the Law Faculty of the University of Indonesia. 

Formal Judicial Review

Responding to the Petitioner’s petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised him to clarify the elaboration on the formal petition and observe the latest Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) as guidelines to revise it. She also advised him to make it more concise, starting with revising his profile; legal standing or individual qualifications; the specific, factual, and potential constitutional impairment; as well as the connection between him and the norms being petitioned.

“In this case what is being reviewed is a law, so hopefully that there will assistance or the Petitioner revise the formal petition so that the Petitioner’s constitutional impairment and its relation to the formal defects of the Law would be clear. This concerns the formation process of the IKN Law, so show the problem in the process,” she said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to study the difference between petitioning for formal and material judicial review so that the petition would become easier to understand and in accordance with the provisions of formal judicial review. Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat asserted that it was necessary for the Petitioner to review PMK No. 2 of 2021.

“The [petition] has not met the requirements and needs to be adjusted, especially Article 10 paragraph (2), which consists of the Petitioner’s profile up to the petitum. All of it this must be clearly revised, otherwise, the justices could deem it obscure. So, if it is more complete, the Petitioner’s request can be considered because what the Petitioner wants is clear,” he explained. 

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/20/2022 11:55 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.

---