The petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade for case No. 51/PUU-XX/2022, Tuesday (5/17/2022). Photo by Humas MK/BPE.

---

Tuesday, May 17, 2022 | 15:33 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade on Tuesday, May 17, 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 said that the petition had been revised following the justices’ advice at the previous hearing.

“We have revised [the petition]. For example, since the Petitioner is singular, we address him as ‘the Petitioner’ and we removed ‘the Petitioners.’ We have revised the petitum by mentioning the ‘State Gazette,’” he said.

He added that the substance in the elaboration of the legal standing had been reduced to only 2 articles, when the touchstones were previously four articles.

“In part 5, the legal standing, only 2 [touchstones] remains, Your Honors. First, Article 27 paragraph (2) on the right to decent job and livelihood. Second, constitutional rights as well as the guarantee of fair legal certainty in the touchstones,” he stressed.

Irawan added that in the subject matter, point 27, page 14, Article 27 had been elaborated. “We explain that Article 29 paragraph (1) is unconstitutional because the Petitioner’s job depends on the cooking oil sold in the market,” he said.

Also read: Cooking Oil Scarcity Compels Pecel Lele Vendor to Challenge Trade Law 

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner asserted that Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law had impaired his 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,” said legal counsel Ahmad Irawan.

He 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,” he stressed.

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

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

Translation uploaded on 5/18/2022 09:50 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.

---