Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul, Saldi Isra, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh opening the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade, Tuesday (4/26/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, April 26, 2022 | 12:10 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade on Tuesday, April 26, 2022. The petition for case No. 51/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Muhammad Hasan Basri, a pecel lele vendor.

The Petitioner challenges Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law, which reads, “Businesspeople shall be prohibited from storing basic need goods and/or essential goods in a certain amount and time in the event of scarcity of goods, price volatility, and/or traffic constraints in Trade of Goods.”

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, legal counsel Ahmad Irawan asserted that Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law had impaired the Petitioner’s constitutional rights due to irregular distribution and storage of cooking oil, which led to scarcity and price hikes. “Although the norm contains prohibition, distributors are able to store cooking oil in certain quantity and period of time. This is what we challenge, Your Honors, the norm relating to certain quantity and period of time,” he said.

Irawan added that cooking oil scarcity made it difficult for the Petitioner to do his business. Meanwhile, high price would affect the Petitioner’s buying power and the prices of his products, thus hindering his business.

“Scarce or expensive cooking oil, based on logical reasoning, can put the Petitioner out of business. If [so], the Petitioner and his family cannot earn decent living, while as a citizen, pursuant to Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, he is entitled to decent work for humanity,” Irawan stressed.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra asked the Petitioner to strengthen his argument on the constitutional impairment. “Find one or two arguments and elaborate why the constitutional rights in the article(s) of the Constitution are harmed, on which the Petitioner’s constitutional impairment in relation to the article petitioned is based on,” he said.

He also advised the Petitioner to reiterate why the article petitioned is in violation with the Constitution. “This [petition] is more practical explanations but we need a strong foundation on why the article is in violation with the Constitution, especially the basis for reference or touchstone,” he added.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to elaborate the touchstone. “The more touchstones in the 1945 Constitution are used, the more they should be elaborated. So, the contradiction [between the article petitioned] and Article 29 paragraph (1) in the Constitution should be elaborated,” he added.

He also asked the Petitioner to observe the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the Procedure for Judicial Review. “Note the background of the petition and the petitum,” he added.

Before concluding the hearing, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul stated that the Petitioner had 14 workdays to revised the petition and were to sumbit it to the Registrar’s Office by May 9, two hours before the next hearing at the latest.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/27/2022 07:47 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.

---