Chief Justice Anwar Usman and Chief Registrar Muhidin at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade, Wednesday (7/13/2021) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Wednesday, July 13, 2022 | 13:07 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade on Wednesday, July 13, 2022 in the plenary courtroom, presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices. The petition for case No. 51/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Muhammad Hasan Basri, a pecel lele vendor.

The fourth hearing had been scheduled to hear an expert for the Petitioner. However, according to the Registrar’s Office, the written testimony had only been submitted the day before. Based on Article 10 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 1 of 2021 on the Implementation of Remote Hearing, expert testimony should be submitted to the Court no later than two days before the hearing.

“Therefore, the hearing will be postponed until Monday, August 1, 2022 to hear the [House of Representatives (DPR)] and the Petitioner’s expert,” the chief justice said.

The Petitioner’s legal counsel Ahmad Irawan apologized for the late submission of the expert’s testimony and curriculum vitae. “First, we’d like to apologize for the late submission of the expert’s testimony, CV, and request letter. Thus, we accept the Court’s reschedule. We will also have time to connect with another economist, Your Honors,” he said virtually.

Also read:

Cooking Oil Scarcity Compels Pecel Lele Vendor to Challenge Trade Law 

Pecel Lele Vendor Revises Petition on Trade Law

Govt Explains Public Bulk Cooking Oil Program

The petition for case No. 51/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Muhammad Hasan Basri, a pecel lele vendor, who challenges Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law, which reads, “Businesspeople shall be prohibited from storing basic need goods and/or essential goods in a certain amount and time in the event of scarcity of goods, price volatility, and/or traffic constraints in Trade of Goods.”

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner asserted that Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law had impaired his constitutional rights due to irregular distribution and storage of cooking oil, which led to scarcity and price hikes. “Although the norm contains prohibition, distributors are able to store cooking oil in certain quantity and period of time. This is what we challenge, Your Honors, the norm relating to certain quantity and period of time,” said legal counsel Ahmad Irawan.

He added that cooking oil scarcity made it difficult for the Petitioner to do his business. Meanwhile, high price would affect the Petitioner’s buying power and the prices of his products, thus hindering his business.

“Scarce or expensive cooking oil, based on logical reasoning, can put the Petitioner out of business. If [so], the Petitioner and his family cannot earn decent living, while as a citizen, pursuant to Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, he is entitled to decent work for humanity,” he stressed.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/13/2022 13:43 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.

---