The Petitioners’ legal counsel Anwar Rachman at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH) juncto Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Tuesday (7/5/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Tuesday, July 5, 2022 | 21:20 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The virtual preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Guarantee (JPH) in conjunction with Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, July 5, 2022. The petition for case No. 67/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Ainur Rofiq, Achmad Mutohar, and Muhamad Yusuf (Petitioner I); Mohamad Dahlan Moga, Oheo Kaimuddin Haris, and Safril Sofwan Sanib (Petitioner II); Khoirul Umam and Laily Irmayanti (Petitioner III); as well as 20 others. They challenge Article 5 paragraph (3) and Article 6 of the JPH Law.

Article 5 paragraph (3) reads, “To implement the organizing of JPH as intended in paragraph (2), the BPJPH is formed, which is positioned under and responsible to the Minister.” In this case, the Minister is the Minister of Religion.

Article 6 reads, “In organizing JPH, the BPJPH is authorized to: a. formulate and stipulate JPH policies; b. stipulate the norms, standard, procedure, and criteria of JPH; c. issue and revoke Halal Certificate and Halal Label on any Product; d. perform registration of Halal Certificate on any foreign Product; e. perform dissemination, education, and publication of Halal Products; f. perform accreditation of LPH; g. certificate Halal Auditors; h. control JPH; i. train Halal Auditors; and j. collaborate with domestic and foreign institutions in organizing JPH.”

The Petitioners, represented by legal counsel Anwar Rachman, argued that the a quo Law could not guarantee each resident’s independence to embrace their own religion and to worship according to their religion and beliefs as well as to provide protection and guarantee regarding the halalness of consumable products because the legal norms in both a quo Laws are not in accordance with the legal theories and legal principles that the Petitioners instruct on their students while teaching on campus. Therefore, their constitutional rights to obtain guarantee of legal certainty and justice in their effort to educate the young generation with quality and integrity have been violated.

“The enactment of Law No. 33 of 2014 and Law No. 11 of 2020 could potentially lead to doubts over the halalness of products circulating in the community, because halal certificates are issued by institutions that are not legally authorized to issue them and have never checked and tested the products in question, without a halal fatwa from an institution that has the competence to declare products halal in a syar’i manner—the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI). The decline of public trust in halal certificates could make people disregard the halalness of products. In addition, floods of imported products can kill micro and small businesses,” Anwar explained. 

Political Intervention

The Petitioners argued that the enactment of both the JPH Law and the Job Creation Law could potentially lead to political intervention because the Halal Certification Agency (BPJPH) was not professional nor independent as it was under the Ministry of Religion, whose minister holds a political position. As a consequence, Indonesian products could face rejections overseas. In addition, it could cause disturbance within the community. It could also threaten micro, small, and medium businesses due to floods of products by bigger producers and of imported products.

The Petitioners argued that the JPH Law in conjunction with the Job Creation Law have more mudharat [(harm)] than good. Therefore, they requested that the Court revoke and invalidate Article 5 paragraph (3) and Article 6 of the JPH Law, Article 29 paragraph (1) of the JPH Law juncto Article 29 paragraph (1) of  the Job Creation Law, Article 35 of the JPH Law, Article 42 paragraph (1) of the JPH Law juncto Article 42 paragraph (1) of the Job Creation Law, and Article 48 of the JPH Law juncto Article 48 of the Job Creation Law.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo in his advice said that, according to the power of attorney, the Petitioners only challenged articles in the JPH Law and the Job Creation Law that the legal counsel conveyed. However, they inserted a formal petition.

“The Petitioners actually only challenge [the norms] materially as the petition does not mention a formal review of the a quo Law,” he said.

Thus, the Petitioners have to options, he added. First, to do away with the formal review and to keep only with the material review. Second, to complete the power of attorney with the formal review.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioners to rewrite the petition following the standard format. “The Petitioners’ petition has not followed the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021. [The standard format] is simple. It only covers the subject matter, the [Petitioners’ profiles], the Court’s authority, the [Petitioners’] legal standing, the posita, and the petitum. Please read upon [the standard format],” she said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair) reiterated the advice offered by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Enny Nurbaningsih. He believed their advice sufficed. He reminded the Petitioners to read up on the Court’s previous decision on the Laws being challenged as well as other matters to revise the petition.

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

Translation uploaded on 7/6/2022 11:39 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.

---