Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Saldi Isra entering the courtroom to preside over the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 5 of 2022 on North Sulawesi Province, Thursday (6/9/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, June 9, 2022 | 09:53 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Imanuel Mahole, a university student from Talaud Islands, North Sulawesi, challenges Law No. 5 of 2022 on North Sulawesi Province formally. The preliminary hearing of case No. 63/PUU-XX/2022 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday afternoon, June 9, 2022.

Mahole is currently taking a master’s degree in Business Law and Constitutional Law with a minor in Constitutional Law at the Law Faculty of Gadjah Mada University (UGM). In the subject of Judicial Review of Legislation, the Petitioner had been introduced to the formal and material judicial review.

The North Sulawesi Law, he alleged, had restricted his right to sufficient education and legal certainty because his instructor had taught him that lawmaking started from the Prolegnas (national legislative program) and must comply with lawmaking principles.

“The promulgation of Law No. 5 of 2022 without having gone through the Prolegnas, either the Prolegnas of 2020-2024 or the Amended Priority Prolegnas of 2021 or the Priority Prolegnas of 2022, legislators should have complied with the statutory provisions on lawmaking,” he said while stressing that the formation of the North Sulawesi Law had violated the lawmaking principles as referred to in Law No. 12 of 2011.

The formal preliminary hearing of the North Sulawesi Law took place virtually. The Court took a few minutes of recess due to internet connection issue in the Petitioner’s part when he conveyed the subject matter.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra advised the Petitioner to study the prerequisite to file a formal petition, that is, a 45-day deadline following the latest Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 since the promulgation of the law. He also said that the Petitioner’s petition had passed said deadline by one day.

“It is up to you, whether to continue with the petition or to withdraw it, because it concerns the deadline,” he stressed.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioner to reread PMK No. 2 of 2021 on the requirements for formal and material petitions. He also advised that the Petitioner read the Court decisions on the deadline of the formal petition. “The count starts since the day it is promulgated, not the day after,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair) highlighted the asynchrony with the article of the touchstone. “In the first paragraph of the petition, it says Article 22A, while in the posita you mention Article 20A. Please correct this,” he said.

He also stressed the importance of the deadline for the petition. “It is important if it has passed the deadline,” he said.

Writer       : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/10/2022 11:36 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.

---