Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Wahiduddin Adams presiding over the judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2011 on Condominium, Tuesday (6/21/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Tuesday, June 21, 2022 | 14:39 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The legal counsel of the Petitioners of case No. 62/PUU-XX/2022, Ilham Hermawan, conveyed the revisions to the material judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2011 on Condominium at the second hearing on Tuesday, June 21, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. the petition was filed by owners of a condotel (condominium-hotel) Rini Wulandari, Hesti Br Ginting, Ir. Budiman Widyatmoko, and Kristyawan Dwibhakti (Petitioners I-IV). They challenge Article 50 of the Condominium Law, which reads, “The use of multi-story buildings shall be conducted in accordance with the function: a. residence; or b. mix-use.”

Before a panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, Ilham said the petition had been revised following the justices’ advice at the previous hearing. “With Your Excellencies’ permission, I would like to convey a few points we revised in the petition. We had added the Constitutional Court Law in the authority of the Constitutional Court. Law No. 12 2011 on Lawmaking has also been added by the amendment to Law 15 and finally, Law No. 13 of 2022 has also been included in the Court’s authority,” he said virtually.

The Petitioners had also revised their arguments, such as on the joint ownership system generally used for high-rise buildings, such as residences, condotels, business premises, shopping areas (malls or plazas), shops, offices, and industries. Ilham added that the purpose of a joint ownership system (in this case a condominium) is not limited to housing.

“In several countries, joint ownership puts an emphasis on property ownership. In the UK it is called joint property, condominium in Italy, and strata title in Singapore and Australia,” he said.

Also read: Condotel Owners Question Phrase in Condominium Law

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners argued that a condotel that is not functioned for residence or mix-use results in theirs not being able to be issued a certificate of condominium unit ownership for. Then, in their petition, the Petitioners asserted that the provisions on the use of condominiums only for residential and mixed functions, regulated explicitly in Article 50 of the Condominium Law, were detrimental to their constitutional rights.

Thus, based on those reasons, they asked that the Court declare Article 50 of the Condominium Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted as including “not a residence.”

Writer       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/23/2022 13:30 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.

---