Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reading out the Court’s legal considerations at 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 | 15:04 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—On Wednesday, July 20, 2022, the Constitutional Court (MK) rejected a formal and material judicial review petition of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) filed by academic Azyumardi Azra and 20 others. “[The Court passed] a verdict to reject the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the Decision No. 34/PUU-XX/2022.
The Petitioners had argued that the formation of the IKN Law did not fulfil the right to be considered and the right to be explained. Reading out the Court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said that based on the testimony of the House, the House had facilitated public participation by making the IKN bill and its academic text readily available on the House of Representatives’ (DPR) website, following Article 96 paragraph (4) of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking.
“On the website, the public can read and download documents related to the formation of the IKN [Law]. Information on the website include information on the bill, the records, as well as a feedback form,” Justice Saldi said.
Also read: Deemed Formally Defective, State Capital Law Challenged Again
Justice Saldi also said that the House had explained, supported by documents attached to its testimony, that the IKN Law had been discussed openly, transparently, and involving various parties, in compliance with statutory laws and regulations, and had matched the facts conveyed during Court proceedings. Thus, the legislators had involved the public and considered their inputs in the formation of the IKN Bill and its academic text, although it is impossible to invite all elements of society and organizations to lawmaking meetings.
“Therefore, the legislators had involved the public or facilitated public participation. From the a quo testimony of the House and its attachments, it was found out that in the formation of Law No. 3 of 2022, the legislators had made efforts to meet the criteria for meaningful participation as mentioned in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020 through public hearing meetings (RDPUs), audience, public consultations, and official visits, especially with stakeholders who had interest in the substance of the IKN Bill, and had followed them up [by including them] in the problem inventory list (DIM) of the factions,” Justice Saldi explained.
The Court believed that this proved that the legislators had tried to fulfill the public’s right to be heard and have their opinions considered, as well as to be explained or answered. In its written testimony, the House had also described various opinions and inputs from the public and experts that it responded to and followed up. Justice Saldi also explained that in the table, there was a description of various opinions/inputs from the public that had been accommodated by the House in the DIM and considered in the discussions of the IKN Bill.
Furthermore, access to the IKN Bill and the academic manuscript meant that the public had been given the widest opportunity to provide feedback and input on the Bill. Then, they were expected to actively express their opinion on the bill by filling out an online opinion and input form on the House’s official website.
“In this case, according to the Court, it was not proven that the legislators have ruled out the right to be considered and the right to be explained, because access to the public had been opened as described. Thus, the Petitioners’ argument of the failure to fulfil the right to be considered and the right to be explained in the formation process of the IKN Bill, which was then ratified as Law No. 3 of 2022 was legally groundless,” Justice Saldi explained.
Also read: Suharso Monoarfa Explains State Capital Law’s Vision and Mission to Form a World City
Discussion Proven
The Petitioners also argued that Appendix II of the IKN Law never existed (attached) and/or was never discussed nor made available at the time of mutual agreement. Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said it was the master plan for the state capital. In the plan, at the initial stage it was proposed that it would be regulated in a presidential regulation, which was then mutually agreed as part of Appendix II to the IKN Law. The master plan had been submitted by the president to the House and discussed by the Special Committee on the IKN Bill with the president, represented by the Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Ministry of Agrarian and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency. Although in the special committee report dated January 18, 2022, a few factions stated that Appendix II had not been discussed, based on the minutes of the plenary session dated January 18, 2022, all participants of the session had approved the IKN Bill and its attachments to be ratified into law.
“Moreover, in the level II discussion, the agenda was the approval and ratification of the IKN Bill, not a detailed discussion of articles, including the substance of the Appendix to the a quo Bill. Based on that explanation of the legal considerations, according to the Court, the Petitioners’ argument that Appendix II to the IKN Bill that was later ratified as Law No. 3 of 2022 was never discussed at the time of mutual agreement, was legally groundless.
Also read: Bambang Brodjonegoro: State Capital Relocation Studied Comprehensively
The petition No. 34/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by 21 Petitioners of various professions such as academics, private employees, entrepreneurs, and journalists, Din Syamsudin, Azyumardi Azra, and Didin S. Damanhuri. They believed that their constitutional rights had been impaired by the enactment of the IKN Law. They also asserted that the formation of the IKN Law had only listened inputs from certain stakeholders but not those that reflect the Petitioners’ aspirations, had impaired their right to information and to develop themselves and their social environment. They also asserted that guarantee of acknowledgement and protection of their rights, legal certainty, and equality before the law had not been fulfilled due to the enactment of the a quo law.
The Petitioners feel disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 1 paragraph (2) and paragraph (8), Article 4, and Article 5 paragraph (4) of the IKN Law, which they believe to be in violation of Article 18 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 18A paragraph (1), and Article 18B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution for failing to fulfill acknowledgement and protection of their rights, legal certainty, and equality before the law.
Relating to the formal judicial review, the Petitioners argued that Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution provide opportunities for citizens to participate in government. If the formation of laws and regulations reduces community participation to debate and discuss the contents, then it can be said to have violated the people’s sovereignty.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 7/21/2022 15:03 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 | 15:04 WIB 182