Chief Justice Anwar Usman opening the formal judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital, Thursday (5/12/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Thursday, May 12, 2022 | 16:49 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The formal judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) commenced in the Constitutional Court (MK) virtually on Thursday, May 12, 2022 for two cases, No. 25/PUU-XX/2022 and No. 34/PUU-XX/2022.
At the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, M. Fadhil Hasan, a former presidential expert staff and economist, testified for the case No. 34/PUU-XX/2022. He explained that on December 9, 2021 he was invited to speak at the Public Hearing Meeting (RDPU) of the House of Representatives’ Working Committee for the State Capital (Panja IKN DPR).
“Along with other speakers, [I] conveyed my views and opinions on the IKN Bill. [… I] especially conveyed that the state capital relocation would not be feasible, was not urgent, and then [I] laid out my reasons both in qualitative and quantitative terms,” he said before the Court virtually.
Fadhil asserted that the relocation would not be feasible because the government’s vital capacity had still been limited and it had been faced with the mitigation of a high number of COVID-19 cases and had been in need of social aids for the community. On the other hand, he added, government revenue from taxes and its expenditures were increasing, which was then financed by debt. “We said that in terms of the country’s financial capacity, it would not be possible at this time to build a large-scale project such as the IKN,” he explained.
Impacts of Capital Relocation
Fadhil said that the government’s argument that the development of the new capital city would equalize economic growth, share the burden of Jakarta, and become a center of economic growth was still debatable.
“[I] then conveyed the results of [our] study that used scientifically accountable method, which proved that there were no strong evidence and facts based on simulation that the development of the new capital city would bring about distribution and promote economic growth,” he stressed.
He further emphasized that the development process of the new capital city had not followed good governance. “For example, the discussion of the IKN Bill with the House was done after the relocation was decided. Even the Head of [the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas)] had carried out a soft launching and laid the first stone at point zero of the IKN development long before the discussion of the IKN Bill. Then, [I] also said that prior to the discussion with the House, the discourse on the IKN relocation had not seen sufficient public participation. So, it was very technocratic, even many people didn’t know the contents of the plans, nor the academic text,” he said.
Fadhil also said the relocation would do little to promote economic growth and development distribution in the regions. He also stressed that a study by an NGO found that there had been no in-depth assessment into the environmental impacts of the relocation, which was predicted to cause environmental damage.
He also revealed that after the speakers conveyed their opinions, they responded to questioning by House members. However, the meeting chair decided to call for a recess until 19:00 WIB, but when he contacted one of the committee members, he was told that the meeting had been adjourned.
“So, I assumed that the meeting would continue [sometime] where I would be given the opportunity to reply questions or responses by the Panja IKN DPR. However, when I entered the zoom meeting and waited for about 30-40 minutes, I could not get in. Then, I contacted of the committee members, who said that the meeting had been over. So it did not continue,” he testified.
Also read:
National Axis for State Sovereignty Challenges State Capital Law
Deemed Formally Defective, State Capital Law Challenged Again
National Axis for State Sovereignty Adds 12 Other Petitioners in Case on State Capital Law
Din Syamsudin and Others Revise Petition on State Capital Law
Suharso Monoarfa Explains State Capital Law’s Vision and Mission to Form a World City
The case No. 25/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Abdullah Hehamahua, Marwan Batubara, Muhyidin Junaidi, Lt. Gen. Suharto (Retired), Maj. Gen. Soenarko MD (Retired), Taufik Bahaudin, Syamsul Balda, Habib Muhsin Al Attas, Agus Muhammad Maksun, M. Mursalim R, Irwansyah, and Agung Mozin (Petitioners I-XII). All twelve Petitioners were represented by legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa.
Tandiasa asserted that the Petitioners could not provide their inputs and criticism during the formation of the IKN Law, as it was formed in only 42 days. The hasty process led to the lack of public participation, which could potentially lead to horizontal conflicts.
Meanwhile, the case No. 34/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by 21 Petitioners of various professions such as academics, private employees, entrepreneurs, and journalists, Din Syamsudin, Azyumardi Azra, and Didin S. Damanhuri. They believe that their constitutional rights had been impaired by the enactment of the IKN Law.
Through legal counsel Ibnu Sina Chandranegara, they asserted that the formation of the IKN Law had only listened 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.
The Petitioners feel disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 1 paragraph (2) and paragraph (8), Article 4, and Article 5 paragraph (4) of the IKN Law, which they believe to be in violation of Article 18 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 18A paragraph (1), and Article 18B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution for failing to fulfill acknowledgement and protection of their rights, legal certainty, and equality before the law.
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.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 5/12/2022 09:33 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.
Thursday, May 12, 2022 | 16:49 WIB 274