Legal counsel Arvid Martdwisaktyo reading out the Petitioner’s petition at the preliminary hearing of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital, Tuesday (4/19/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Tuesday, April 19, 2022 | 14:49 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) adjudicated for the fifth time a judicial review case of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law). The case No. 48/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Damai Hari Lubis, an advocate. The preliminary hearing for the case was presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh on Tuesday, April 19, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The Petitioner attended the hearing virtually.
Arvid Martdwisaktyo, the Petitioner’s legal counsel, argued that the discussion of the State Capital Bill had only taken 42 days and its planning—which include planning the development, regulation, and state finances, as well as the development—was not continuous. This is because the plan to move the state capital has never been stated in the National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN) in Law No. 17 of 2007 on RPJPN, Law No. 39 of 2008 on State Ministries, and the 2015-2019 National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN).
“The state capital [relocation] suddenly appeared in the Presidential Regulation No. 18 of 2020 on the 2020-2024 National Medium-Term Development Plan. Even so, the state capital [relocation] budget has never been found in the Law on the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget for the fiscal years of 2020, 2021, and 2022,” he said.
The formation of the State Capital Law did not really pay attention to the content, because a lot of the matters were delegated to implementing regulations. In 44 articles of the Law, there are 13 orders for the delegation of regulatory authority to implementing regulations. The Law does not specifically regulate the administration of the State Capital government. In addition, the Law regulates matters on the state capital in broad strokes. The matters delegated in those 13 orders should be regulated in a law because they are strategic in nature.
The Petitioner also argued that the Law’s formation did not take into account the effectiveness of the legislation in society philosophically, sociologically, and juridically. Because the state capital is mentioned in the 1945 Constitution, every policy related to it should be formulated in a comprehensive and holistic manner. The state capital relocation policy does not take into account the sociological aspects of national and global conditions, currently amid the COVID-19 pandemic, when the number of active cases is still fairly high.
In addition, the Petitioner asserted that the formation of the a quo Law lacked public participation. Of the 28 discussion meetings for the Bill in the House of Representatives (DPR), only 7 whose documents and information can be accessed. Documents and information for the 21 meetings are not publicly available. The formation of the a quo Law, which was discussed from November 3, 2021 to January 18, 2022, only took 42 days, very fast for a bill that was supposed to be very strategic and have broad impacts.
Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court repeal the State Capital Law as it contradicts the 1945 Constitution.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih gave suggestions for improvement to the petition’s format. “Please read the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021 on the format of a judicial review petition, including the Court’s authority, especially for formal judicial review. Apart from that, read petitions and decisions of the Court on formal judicial review because it is specific, in accordance with the lawmaking process itself,” she explained. She also suggested that the Petitioner describe the background of the petition in more detail by showing evidence.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh observed that the petition did not mention grace period for petition. “Then, the touchstone for this petition is Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution, no need to relate it to Article 18 and others. It’s not necessary. The technical aspects are regulated in Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking,” he said.
Last, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat (panel chair) commented that the petition looked ambiguous, whether directed to a formal or material judicial review, even though the Petitioner’s counsel asserted that it was a formal petition. “Because if you look at it, the elaboration is jumbled. There is elaboration for formal judicial review, also for material judicial review, then back to the formal. If you assert that this is a formal petition, it means it will only focus on the formal judicial review, by confirming that the touchstone is Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution,” he said.
Writer : Nano Tresna A.
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 4/20/2022 09:41 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.
Tuesday, April 19, 2022 | 14:49 WIB 240