Another judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking to hear the president’s testimony, Wednesday (8/24/2021). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.
Wednesday, August 24, 2022 | 16:08 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—Another formal judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation (Lawmaking/P3 Law) took place in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday, August 24, 2022. The case No. 69/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by the Labor Party and several individuals.
The hearing had been scheduled to hear the president (Government), represented by expert staff for Regulation, Law Enforcement, and Economic Resilience of the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs Elen Setiadi, and the DPR (House of Representatives), who were indisposed.
Constitutional Impairment
Elen Setiadi explained that lawmaking is carried out in a planned, integrated, sustainable manner by taking into account lawmaking principles, in order to support the realization of national directions and goals.
“In order to realize planned, integrated, and sustainable laws and regulations, it is necessary to organize and improve the lawmaking mechanism from planning, drafting, discussing, ratifying or stipulating, to enactment,” he said.
The Government understands that the assessment of legal standing is the Court’s authority. However, taking into account the Petitioners’ arguments of constitutional impairment, the Government asserted that the Lawmaking Law was issued to carry out the mandate of the Constitutional Court’s decision and provide legal certainty.
Based on the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 006/PUU-II/2005 and No. 11/PUU-V/2007, the Government expressly denied the Petitioners’ legal standing argument for three reasons. First, the Petitioners could not show their constitutional specific, factual, or potential impairment. Second, they could not show causality between the impairment and the enactment of the law petitioned for review. “Thirdly, the Petitioners could not demonstrate the possibility that if the petition is granted, the constitutional impairment will not occur again,” Setiadi added.
Hyperregulation
Setiadi revealed that currently there is hyperregulation in Indonesia, so laws and regulations overlap, leading to lack of legal certainty. According to data by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, as of January 4, 2022, Indonesia had a total of 41,086 laws and regulations. Law No. 12 of 2011 as a lawmaking regulation must be in line with the community’s legal needs, including overcoming the hyperregulation issue. It was deemed necessary to renew Law No. 12 of 2011, amended by Law No. 15 of 2019, so that it would remain relevant in the midst of changing legal needs. The amendment was also based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, which mandated a legal basis that would accommodate the omnibus method and more meaningful community participation.
“Thus, the Government then considered the second amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 important and relevant in order to answer the legal needs and regulatory arrangements in Indonesia,” Setiadi said.
The Government asserted that Law No. 13 of 2022 had fulfilled the provisions of Law No. 12 of 2011 in conjunction with Law No. 15 of 2019, as it had provided legal certainty as follows: the regulation of the omnibus method for guarantee legal certainty; the correction of nonsubstantial technical errors after mutual agreement between the House and the president in the plenary session from before ratification and promulgation, improving meaningful community involvement and participation (the right to be heard, to be considered, and to be explained to); establishing laws and regulations electronically; changing the support system from researchers to legislative analysts and adding legal analysts as a support system whose work is related to lawmaking; completing the technique of academic text drafting; improving lawmaking techniques. Therefore, through Law No. 13 of 2022, the Government made improvements to Law No. 12 of 2011 in conjunction with Law No. 15 of 2019 as part of the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.
Also read:
Lawmaking Law Challenged by Labor Party for Alleged Potential to Revive Job Creation Law
Labor Party Focuses on Formal Petition Against Lawmaking Law
Petitioners’ Signatures’ Authenticity Checked in Formal Case Against Lawmaking Law
The case No. 69/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by the Labor Party, represented by president Said Iqbal and secretary-general Ferri Nurzali. They formally challenged Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation (Lawmaking/P3 Law).
At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, July 14, 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.
“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 stressed.
Writer : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Muhammad Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 8/25/2022 13:56 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, August 24, 2022 | 16:08 WIB 402