Former Minister of the National Development Planning and Head of the National Development Planning Agency Bambang Brodjonegoro testifying for the Government at the formal judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital, Wednesday (5/18/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.
Wednesday, May 18, 2022 | 20:18 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—Former Minister of the National Development Planning and Head of the National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) Bambang Brodjonegoro, who had been in office since July 27, 2016 until October 20, 2019, testified as a witness for the Government at the formal judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 for two cases, No. 25/PUU-XX/2022 and No. 34/PUU-XX/2022. He explained the discussion of the state capital relocation, which had started quite a long while ago in 2017.
At the time, President Joko Widodo proposed the idea to relocate the capital to Central Kalimantang for its vast state-owned territory. However, Bambang, who had been in office, were not immediately taken by it. he requested that he be allowed to study its feasibility. The study came at three options, one being the development of a government district in Central Jakarta.
“We proposed three options. First, developing a government district at the center of Jakarta, in Central Jakarta around Medan Merdeka, to be exact. [It] was border on the west by Jalan Abdul Muis, on the north by Jalan Veterans, on the east by Lapangan Banteng, and on the south by Jalan Kebon Sirih, with the hope that all government buildings can be moved and replaced with offices of ministries and institutions that are the symbol of the government administration,” said the former minister of the Working Cabinet.
The second option, Bambang said, was finding a location in Java Island that was not too far from Jakarta. The third was to relocate outside of Java, especially Kalimantan. He added that based on his study, Kalimantan had significantly lower risks of natural disasters and were located in the middle of the archipelago.
“From the three options that we proposed to the president, after some discussion, we agreed to remain with the third option—relocation outside of Java. When it had been decided, we proposed that we select the location,” he asserted.
Bambang also revealed that the reason to select North Penajam Paser Regency in Central Kalimantan was because it was close to two functional, economically active middle-sized cities.
“Our idea was to create urban areas that were not only dependent on one city, but are an urban system where the capital city [was located near] Balikpapan and Samarinda. That was where we hope for a capital city that would [not] only be the center of government but also of economic activities because there was support from cities that had developed,” he emphasized.
Procedure to Form State Capital Law
Testifying as an expert for the Government, constitutional law expert and law lecturer of UPN Veteran Jakarta Wicipto Setiadi said the formation procedure of the IKN Law must be adjusted to Law No. 12 of 2011 as amended by Law No. 15 of 2019 on DPR, DPD, and DPRD; the Presidential Regulation No. 87 of 2014; and DPR’s (House of Representatives) rules of procedure. He said the first stage was planning, compiling, discussing, ratifying, determining, and enacting. He further explained clarity of purpose would be the focus.
“After we read from several academic text documents and then the Law and also the appendices to this Law, the purpose of capital city relocation through the IKN Law is the shift from Java-centrism to Indonesia-centrism. I think this is the most monumental goal in the process of forming this Law, apart from other goals,” Wicipto said.
In addition, he explained the first stage of the lawmaking process: planning. The academic text, he said, had been well prepared after some adjustment. “The IKN the bill was included in the [National Legislative Program/Prolegnas] 2021. Therefore, from the planning perspective, nothing was breached,” he said.
In the drafting stage, Wicipto added, the bill had also been well prepared and drafted by the inter-ministerial committee. The next process was harmonizing. Meanwhile, the discussion in the House of Representatives (DPR) was carried out in stages I and II in accordance with the House’s rules of procedure. He believed the drafters had allowed for adequate public participation and involved several stakeholders.
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 5/19/2022 09:31 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.