Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams giving a public lecture at the Law Faculty of the Muhammadiyah University of Jember, Saturday (7/16/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Saturday, July 16, 2022 | 14:38 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—State institutions often do not comply with the Constitutional Court (MK) decision, which are final and legally binding. In general, any court decision that is legally binding should be implemented. However, not all decisions are executed, including the Constitutional Court’s. Thus, this has become a source of debate.

The statement was made by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams in his public lecture on “State Institutions’ Compliance of with Constitutional Court Decisions” at the Law Faculty of the Muhammadiyah University of Jember virtually on Saturday, July 16, 2022.

Research Results

Justice Wahiduddin revealed the results of research on the implementation of Constitutional Court decisions. The results showed that in 2018 59 or 54.12% judicial review decisions were followed entirely by state institutions, 6 decisions or 5.5% were followed partially, 24 decisions or 22.01% were not followed, while it was unclear whether 20 decisions or 18.34% were followed. “Unclear means the level of compliance has not been identified,” he said.

He showed Decisions No. 30/PUU-XVI/2018 and No. 10/PUU-XV/2017 as those that were not followed. He explained that normatively, the KPU (General Elections Commission) has complied with the Decision No. 30/PUU-XVI/2018 by issuing the KPU Regulation No. 26 of 2018.

“However, in practice, the Court’s decision was not followed, as evidenced by the Supreme Court Decision No. 65 P/HUM/2018, which annulled the PKPU No. 26 of 2018. As such, the noncompliance was practically realized in a court decision,” he said.

Justice Wahiduddin added that noncompliance with the Constitutional Court decisions means delaying justice. “In principle, noncompliance with a Constitutional Court decision equals delaying or denying justice. This means that implementing a Constitutional Court decision immediately is an obligation because of the final nature of the decision. In addition, the law is a combination of consensus and compulsion, so a Constitutional Court decision is a form of law that must also be interpreted as compulsion that must be obeyed,” he stressed.

Absence of Executors

Justice Wahiduddin said the Constitutional Court does not have apparatus and personnel to oversee and execute its decisions, so the implementation of its decisions depends on the awareness of the citizens. “The Court does not have any apparatus or personnel to execute its decisions or to warn (state institutions) to comply,” he said.

He explained that the Constitutional Court decisions can be categorized into two. First, self-executing decisions that can be implemented immediately since it obtains legal force. They are effective immediately without any revision to the law. Such decisions only annul new laws, since they do not relate to concrete cases. Second, non-self-executing decisions, which needs a certain follow-up.

“Such a decision must await the revision to the law annulled, if it is addressed to the legislative. Meanwhile, decisions which is addressed to the executive needs bureaucratic procedures for consequent implementation,” he said.

Code of Ethics of Justices

In the Q&A session, a student named Adam asked if the legislature had complied with the Decision No. 013-022/PUU-IV/2006 on the material judicial review of the Criminal Code (KUHP) in relation to insults against the president. “What is your opinion on the Criminal Code bill, which might not comply with that decision, that is being discussed (by the House)?” he asked.

In response, Justice Wahiduddin said that the bill was not final nor stipulated by the House and the Government into a law, so it was to early to talk about noncompliance with that decision.

“However, if the law (has been enacted), observers, students, and others who feel the need for judicial review can go to the Constitutional Court. Because it has not been stipulated into a law, academics, stakeholders, and observers can still participate. Offer your views and participate in the discussion. There are still opportunities [to do so],” he answered.

Justice Wahiduddin added that code of ethics bound constitutional justices from talking about things that could potentially be challenged. Any opinions by constitutional justices will show in the Court’s decisions.

Writer          : Nano Tresna Arfana/LA
Editor         : Lulu Anjarsari P.
Translator    : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/25/2022 15:35 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.

---