Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul at the Special Education of Professional Advocate organized by the West Jakarta branch executive board of Peradi and Bina Nusantara University, Friday (5/20/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Saturday, May 21, 2022 | 08:17 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul delivered a presentation at the Special Education of Professional Advocate (PKPA) Batch VI on Friday, May 20, 2022 virtually. The event was organized by the West Jakarta branch executive board (DPC) of the Association of Indonesian Advocates (Peradi) and Bina Nusantara University (Binus).

Justice Manahan explained the history of the Constitutional Court. “In the beginning there was no constitutional court. There was a debate that Soepomo did not agree on because the Constitution that was drafted did not adhere to trias politica and not many legal scholars had experience [in judicial review],” Justice Manahan said.

However, he added, it was only in the Reform era that the amendment to the 1945 Constitution was approved. It was carried out in four stages. The first stage was in 1999, the second in 2000, the third in 2001, and the fourth in 2002. “But the changes must adhere to the principle that the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution cannot be changed. Secondly, the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia is maintained, the presidential system strengthened, and the norms contained in the elucidation to the 1945 Constitution were made available separately in the Constitution,” he explained.

Justice Manahan further explained that the Constitutional Court authorities and obligation are contained in Article 24C paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Court’s first authority is to review laws against the Constitution. The second, he said, is to rule on authority disputes between state institutions whose authorities are regulated in the Constitution. The next is to decide on the dissolution of political parties. In addition, the Court has the authority to decide on disputes over general election results.

Meanwhile, the Court’s obligation, he added, is to decide on the opinion of the DPR (House of Representatives) on the allegation that the president and/or vice president have violated the law, committed a disgraceful act, or no longer meets the requirements as president and/or vice president. “This is what is often referred to as impeachment,” Justice Manahan said.

Then there is one additional authority, which is to decide on disputes over the results of regional head elections (pilkada), which does not come from the Constitution, but from Law No. 10 of 2016 (Pilkada Law). In the Pilkada Law, before a special court is formed to handle this obligation, the Constitutional Court exercises it. The entire authorities of the Constitutional Court is in accordance with Article 24C paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and Law No. 48 of 2009 on the Judiciary.

In its journey, Justice Manahan added, the Court is also authorized to review government regulations in lieu of laws (perppu) as they lead to new legal norms with the same force as laws.

He also explained that the Constitutional Court’s authority differ from that of the Supreme Court, which has the authority to examine and decide, among others, appeals for cassation, disputes regarding the authority to try cases, judicial review of decisions that have permanent legal force, and review of regulations under the law against the law.

Justice Manahan also explained the reasons for petitioners to file a petition to the Constitutional Court. They do so when they believe their constitutional rights, which are granted by the 1945 Constitution, have been impaired by the law(s) being reviewed. Their constitutional impairment is specific and actual or at least potential, which according to logical reasoning is inevitable. Then, there is a causal relationship between the impairment and the enactment of the law(s). In addition, there is a possibility that if the petition is granted, the constitutional impairment will potentially not occur again.

The petitioner could be Indonesian individual citizens, customary law communities, private and public legal entities, as well as state institutions. The petitioner or respondent, Justice Manahan said, may be accompanied or represented by a legal counsel. Meanwhile, public or private legal entities can be accompanied by a legal counsel or appoint a proxy. Legal counsels in the Constitutional Court’s hearing do not have to be advocates, but must be familiar with the procedural law in the Constitutional Court and able to assist the litigants after submitting a letter to the Court. This is to facilitate access to justice for those who cannot afford advocates.

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

Translation uploaded on 5/23/2022 15:03 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.

---