Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reading out the ruling hearing of the formal and material judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law), Tuesday (5/31/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, May 31, 2022 | 15:40 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) decided not to accept the formal and material judicial review petition of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) by Sugeng, a retired civil servant (PNS). The ruling hearing to pronounce Decision No. 39/PUU-XX/2022 presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto and seven other constitutional justices took place in the plenary courtroom on Wednesday, May 31, 2022.

In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Court asserted that in explaining his legal standing in the formal review, the Petitioner could not elaborate on his potential impairment and the constitutionality of the norm clearly. In addition, in explaining his legal standing in the material review, he made an irrelevant argument on the alleged constitutional impairment. The Court found ambiguity in the Petitioner’s explanation of his legal standing in both the formal and material review.

Justice Wahiduddin also asserted that the Petitioner had not elaborated clearly the issue regarding the formation of the IKN Law in the background to the formal review. Instead, he only detailed issues that he believed could have been considered during the formation. However, the Court asserted that it was irrelevant to the background to the petition for formal review. Meanwhile, in the background to the material review, the Petitioner had not elaborated on the article being petitioned and the reasons why it was unconstitutional.

“Aside from being ambiguous, the elaboration in the Petitioner’s petition also contradicted the petitum, where the articles in the posita of the material review were not included in the petitum. In addition, the Petitioner in his petition did not differentiate between the petitum for the formal review and that for the material review,” Justice Wahiduddin said before the litigants who attended the hearing remotely.

Also read: Capital’s Relocation to Kalimantan Potentially Damages Environment 

Deadline

There is a deadline for a formal judicial review petition, starting from the moment the law is promulgated, in order to provide legal certainty. The Court observed that the petition had been filed on March 1, 2022 while the IKN Law had been promulgated on February 15. As such, the deadline would have been March 31.

Based on this legal fact, Justice Wahiduddin added, the Petitioner’s petition had been well within the deadline. However, the Court must considered a few other matters.

Following its procedural law, the Court had examined the petition at a preliminary hearing on April 12, where the justice panel had given the Petitioner advice to revise the petition and clarify his legal standing, posita, and petitum. The Court had also held a petition revision hearing on May 9. After reviewing the petition, the Court ruled that the legal standing, posita, and petitum for both the formal and material review were obscure, thus the entire petition had become obscure.

“Based on the examination on those legal facts, the Court concluded that it was authorized to adjudicate the a quo case; the Petitioner’s petition on the formal judicial review had been filed within the deadline; the Petitioner’s petition was obscure; the Petitioner’s legal standing and the subject matter of the Petitioner’s petition was not considered further,” said Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto reading out the conclusion.

Also read: BPK Retiree Revises Petition on State Capital Law 

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, April 12, 2022, the Petitioner argued that the formation of the IKN Law had violated lawmaking principles and been hasty and a mere formality in addition to lacking public participation.

Meanwhile, for the material judicial review, the Petitioner argued that the state was in a direr need of funding to weather COVID-19 pandemic than to relocate the state capital. He also added that the state budget should be utilized for paying debts, to mitigate natural resources, to renew its primary weaponry defense system (alutsista), for education, and for the election. He asserted that the capital’s relocation to Kalimantan would potentially damage the environment and the life of fauna and flora. A number of BUMN (state-owned enterprises) would suffer losses or issues, he argued. Therefore, he argued, the Government should focus on improving the people’s welfare and on national development. Thus, he requested that the Court revoke the IKN Law.   

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

Translation uploaded on 6/2/2022 10:40 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

---