Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the Court’s legal considerations for the formal judicial review of Law No. 35 of 2009 on Narcotics, Wednesday (7/20/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Thursday, July 21, 2022 | 10:10 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the formal judicial review petition of Law No. 3 of 2022 on the State Capital (IKN Law) by S. M. Phiodias Marthias, a retired employee of PT Chevron Pacific Indonesia. “[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman pronounced alongside the other eight constitutional justices at the virtual ruling hearing for Decision No. 49/PUU-XX/2022 from the plenary courtroom on Wednesday, July 20, 2022.

The subject matter of the petition was the drafting and the content of the academic paper for Law No. 3 of 2022, which the Petitioner believed had not complied with lawmaking principles. They believed the formation of the Law was unconstitutional.

The Court considered that the academic paper as referred to in Law No. 12 of 2011 is the text on the results of research or legal study and other studies on a certain issue that are scientifically justified in order to support the regulation of the issue in a bill of law (RUU), a provincial regulation draft, or a regency/city regulation draft as a solution to the problems and legal needs of the community.

Law No. 12 of 2011 also explains the reasons for the need for an academic paper as a reference in the formation of a bill. Therefore, the background of the academic paper explains why the formation of the bill requires an in-depth and comprehensive study of scientific theories or ideas related to the object of the bill. This leads to the preparation of philosophical, sociological, and juridical arguments to support the bill. The academic paper acts as a reference so, in the discussion of the bill in order to reach mutual approval among legislators, the matters within the academic paper do not necessarily have to be included in the bill. In other words, any change to a bill does not necessarily render the lawmaking process unconstitutional.

Also read:

State Capital Law Deemed Potentially Disruptive to Nation’s Future 

Court Examines Revisions to Three Formal Petitions Against State Capital Law 

Significance of Academic Paper

The Court asserted that academic papers are necessary in lawmaking. Article 43 paragraph (3) of Law No. 12 of 2011 reads, “A Bill of Law initiated by either the DPR, the President, or the DPD must be accompanied by an Academic Paper.” In the a quo case, Law No. 3 of 2022 was drafted with an academic paper.

The Court was of the opinion that it was inappropriate to question the constitutionality of the content of the academic paper considering that the lawmaking process allows for changes. Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument on the unconstitutionality of the preparation and content of the academic paper was erroneous because he should have questioned the formation process of the IKN Law instead.

Meanwhile, the formation process or procedure of the IKN Law has been assessed by the Court in Decisions No. 25/PUU-XX/2022 and No. 34/PUU-XX/2022, which were pronounced before the decision on a quo case, in which the Court stated that the formation of the IKN Law was not unconstitutional, thus the Petitioners’ arguments for the two cases had no legal basis. As such, the argument made by the a quo Petitioner must also be declared legally groundless because it related to formation of the IKN Law in casu the academic paper of the IKN Law.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/22/2022 14:26 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.

---