The ruling hearing for the formal and material judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital, Wednesday (7/20/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
Wednesday, July 20, 2022 | 15:03 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—A formal and material judicial review petition of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) by former KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission) advisor Abdullah Hehamahua and colleagues were rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK). The Decision No. 25/PUU-XX/2022 was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman at a ruling hearing on Wednesday, July 20, 2022 in the plenary courtroom.
“On the Provision, [the Court] rejects the Petitioners’ provision. On the Subject of the Petition, [the Court] rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” Justice Anwar pronounced before the litigants, who attended the hearing virtually.
The Petitioners alleged that the IKN Law had been a fast-track legislation, as seen in a table available on the House of Representatives’ (DPR) website. They believed Law No. 3 of 2022 had been formed in merely 42 days, from November 3, 2021 to January 18, 2022. They claimed the process was too hasty and lacked meaningful public participation—which the Court had considered in Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020—for a strategic law that has vast impacts. In addition, they believe the fast track formation of the Law had added to a long list of fast track legislation, which could lead to the failure of the deliberating in the lawmaking process, making it a violation of Article 1 paragraphs (2) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution.
Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that regardless of lack of relevant evidence from the Petitioners, lawmaking does not depend on the speed of the discussion but whether it follows lawmaking procedure pursuant to Law No. 12 of 2011 and its amendments—the planning, drafting, discussing, ratification, and promulgation stages.
She added that the Court is of the opinion that as long as all stages are carried out sincerely and cautiously by legislators, swiftness of the process, which makes it seem like a fast track legislation, shows their effort to finish any laws, including the IKN Law—since a bill is proposed into the medium-term Prolegnas (national legislative program). In addition, Law No. 12 of 2011 and its amendments do not set a definitive time for the completion of a bill that has been entered into Prolegnas.
“Based on such legal considerations, the Court believes the Petitioners’ argument of the fast track legislation in forming Law No. 3 of 2022 and its unconstitutionality was legally groundless,” she added.
Also read: National Axis for State Sovereignty Challenges State Capital Law
Transparency
In the petition, the Petitioners also alleged that the IKN Law’s formation had violated the principle of transparency in Article 5 letter g of Law No. 12 of 2011. This, the claimed, was evident in that there were 28 discussion stages/agendas of the IKN Bill in the House, but only 7 whose documents and information could be accessed. Thus, this made public representation in the bill highly partial and non-holistic.
Based on the legal facts during the proceedings, said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the Court’s considerations, the Government and the House had proven that they had hold activities to collect public aspirations from community figures, NGOs, academics, constitutional law experts, and customary law communities. The Court did not find any legal facts that the Petitioners had involved themselves and/or participated proactively and responsively in providing inputs to the formation of the IKN Law when they actually could, even without any invitation.
“Regardless of any facts that the Petitioners had actively provided inputs on the formation of Law No. 3 of 2022, the Court did not find any other evidence from the Petitioners that could prove that the Government and the House had isolated themselves or not been transparent to the public on the formation of Law No. 3 of 2022,” Justice Arief said.
Also read: National Axis for State Sovereignty Adds 12 Other Petitioners in Case on State Capital Law
The Court considered 2 pieces of evidence that the Petitioners submitted to be insufficient to prove the allegation that the Government and the House had violated the principle of transparency as required by Article 5 letter g of Law No. 12 of 2011. The evidence were screenshots of the records of the formation of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the House’s website and a request letter for data/document dated May 9, 2022 on the formation of the IKN Law for the Head of the National Development Planning Agency, the Law and Human Rights Minister, and the House through the secretary-general of the House.
“Based on those considerations, the Petitioners’ argument that the formation of Law No. 3 of 2022 has violated the principle of transparency was legally groundless,” Justice Arief asserted.
Also read: Suharso Monoarfa Explains State Capital Law’s Vision and Mission to Form a World City
Formal Petition Groundless
With regard to the formal review, the Petitioners made a provisional petition a formal one. Reading out the Court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said the Petitioners had filed a provisional petition to appeal to the Court so that it would pass an interlocutory decision by ordering the Government to delay all policies and derivative regulations, in casu implementing regulations of the IKN Law, until there was a final decision on the subject of the a quo petition. They cited a reason: to avoid bigger impacts and to protect the legal certainty of the Petitioners’ rights that had been violated during the formation of the IKN Law.
Justice Saldi added that the Court asserted that judicial review of laws is not adversarial nor is it a dispute of interests between parties. Instead, it is the review of a general law that applies to all citizens. Therefore, the a quo provisional petition must be considered separately and case-by-case provided that it is relevant and urgent.
“However, after reviewing, the background to the provisional petition that the Petitioners filed was more about the materials of Law No. 3 of 2022, so it was an inappropriate reason for the provisional petition in the formal review. Not to mention, the Court did not find any strong reason to delay the enactment of the a quo law. therefore, the Petitioners’ provisional petition was legally groundless,” Justice Saldi stressed.
Also read: Bambang Brodjonegoro: State Capital Relocation Studied Comprehensively
The Petitioners—Abdullah Hehamahua, Marwan Batubara, Muhyidin Junaidi, and others—are members of the National Axis for State Sovereignty (PNKN) and individual citizens who claimed potential constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the IKN Law.
In the petition, they asserted that the Petitioners could not provide their inputs and criticism during the formation of the IKN Law, as it was formed in only 42 days. The hasty process led to the lack of public participation, which could potentially lead to horizontal conflicts. They believed the formation of the IKN Law had not met the lawmaking provisions based on Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution, to which the norm is delegated, and was in violation of Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as well as Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 6 letters a, e, g, and s of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking,
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 7/21/2022 13:51 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.
Wednesday, July 20, 2022 | 15:03 WIB 205