Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh chairing the panel preliminary hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking, Thursday (7/14/2021) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, July 14, 2022 | 04:45 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation (Lawmaking/P3 Law) was challenged formally and materially at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday, July 14, 2022. The Labor Party, represented by president Said Iqbal and secretary-general Ferri Nurzali, was the Petitioner of case No. 69/PUU-XX/2022. In its petition, the Petitioner alleged that Article 64 paragraph (1 b); Article 72 paragraphs (1a), (1), and (2); and Article 73 paragraphs (1) and (2) were unconstitutional.

At the preliminary hearing, Said Iqbal argued that the enactment of the Lawmaking Law could ‘revive’ Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, which Court had declared formally defective. Therefore, he said, the Party Law had a stake and was part of past formal and material judicial review petitioners against the Job Creation Law alongside the Confederation of Indonesian Trade Unions (KSPI), the All-Indonesia Workers Union Confederation (KSPSI), the Indonesian Metal Workers Federation (FSPMI), the Confederation of Indonesia Prosperity Trade Union (KSBSI), the Indonesian Labour Union Confederation (KPBI), and others.

“The P3 Law, in our opinion, is the entryway to discussing the Job Creation Law, which the Court declared conditionally unconstitutional and formally defective. Therefore, we have a stake to ensure that the P3 Law [...] be ruled by the honorable Constitutional Justices formally and materially invalid or illegitimate,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Petitioner’s legal counsel Said Salahudin said that the Petitioner had asserted that the objectum litis in the petition is the formal judicial review of the Lawmaking Law against the 1945 Constitution. The petition was filed within the 45-day deadline for formal review. The Lawmaking Law was promulgated on June 16 and was petitioned on June 27, or only within 12 days. He argued that the Court is authorized to examine, adjudicate, and rule on the a quo case.

Meanwhile, in the material review, Salahudin said, Article 2 paragraph (4) of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) was added. The Petitioner expressly asserted that the objectum litis in the petition is the material judicial review of 64 paragraph (1 b); Article 72 paragraphs (1a), (1), and (2); and Article 73 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Lawmaking Law, which it believed to be unconstitutional. Therefore, it requested that the Court declare those articles unconstitutional.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair) advised the Petitioner to revise its legal standing. He believed it to differ from that in a previous petition against the Job Creation Law.

“This petition filed by the Labor Party represented by Mr. Said Iqbal as chairman and Mr. Ferri Nurzali as secretary-general. [The Labor Party] is a different legal entity, although when challenging the Job Creation Law Mr. Iqbal and colleagues filed [the petition], but the legal entity was different. So, this cannot be equated. Just because the Petitioner had filed a formal judicial review of the Job Creation Law, it does not necessarily mean that it would have legal standing in the review of another law,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Petitioner regarding the background to the formal and material petition. “The elaboration of the petition can be combined on the one hand, but must be selected, so that the background to the formal and material petition [is clear]. However, the legal standing is elaborated in one part. However, in the petitum, it must be separate,” he said.

He also suggested that the Petitioner’s legal standing be elaborated in relation to five conditions of constitutional impairment within the Court’s jurisprudence. “The Petitioner’s constitutional rights granted by the 1945 Constitution, and its constitutional impairment, and the causal relationship between the impairment [and the norms] should be elaborated,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih highlighted the formal petition. “Please consider whether to [continue with the formal petition]. Focus on the formal review, because the material review will not be examined at the same time. Why? In order to pursue the completion of the formal review, whether there is truly issues with the formation of Law No. 13 of 2022, for the sake of legal certainty. So, the formal review must be prioritized,” she stressed.

The justices gave the Petitioner 14 workdays to revise the petition until July 27 to submit the revised petition to the Registrar’s Office.

Writer       : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/21/2022 08:13 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.

---