Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital City, Tuesday (5/31/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, May 31, 2022 | 14:44 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed the judicial review petition of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) by Herifuddin Daulay. The ruling hearing for the Decision No. 40/PUU-XX/2022 took place on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 in the plenary courtroom.

Herifuddin Daulay, a contract teacher from Dumai, Riau, challenged the State Capital Law formally and materially as he believed its enactment could threaten the nation and state and was unconstitutional. He argued that in the long run, the obscure factors driving the relocation of the state capital. He felt directly disadvantaged by the turmoil due to economic collapse as what occurred in 1965-1998.

Also read: Contract Teacher Petitions State Capital Law

In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court asserted that the Petitioner could not explain clearly the relation between his potential constitutional impairment and the formation of the law for the formal judicial review. Meanwhile, explaining his legal standing in the material judicial review, the Petitioner only explained alleged contradiction between the norm in contention without explaining its relation to his potential impairment. In fact, the part only contained arguments irrelevant to his alleged constitutional impairment.

“Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that there was ambiguity in the elaboration on the Petitioner’s legal standing, for both the formal and material judicial review,” Justice Arief said at the hearing presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto and six other constitutional justices.

Also read: Contract Teacher Affirms Legal Standing in Case Against State Capital Law

Issue in Formation

On the posita (background) of the formal judicial review, Justice Arief said that the Petitioner had not elaborated on the formation issue of the IKN Law deemed to be unconstitutional. In the petition, the Petitioner only explained issues that he believed could have been considered in the formation of the IKN Law. He had only said that the norm in the IKN Law had caused issues, without explaining its relation to its alleged unconstitutionality against the norms of the 1945 Constitution.

The Court believed that, aside from being ambiguous, the petition’s elaboration also had contradicted with the petitum as the articles requested for material judicial review had not been elaborated clearly. Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, the Court ruled the Petitioner’s petition obscure.

“[The Court adjudicated, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Justice Aswanto reading out the verdict.

Writer       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 5/31/2022 15:45 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.

---