The ruling hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press, Wednesday (8/31/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Wednesday, August 31, 2022 | 20:13 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled to reject the entire material judicial review petition of Law No. 40 of 1999 on the Press at a ruling hearing for the case No. 38/PUU-XIX/2021 on Wednesday, August 31, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The petition was filed by three journalists and chairpersons of press companies and legal entity press organizations—Heintje Grontson Mandagie, Hans M. Kawengian, and Soegiharto Santoso, who challenged Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f and paragraph (5) of the Press Law.
Refuting the Petitioners’ argument that Article 15 paragraph (5) of the a quo law had led to multiple interpretations and the Petitioners not appointed members of the Press Council through a presidential decree (keppres), the Court asserted that the appointment through a keppres would not affect the council’s independence. The reason is that the selection was regulated in Article 15 paragraph (3). Meanwhile, the chairperson and vice chairperson are selected from among the members, meaning that members of the council are determined by the press.
“As such, the presidential decree only serves as ratification and is individual, concrete, and applying one time for the selected Press Council member. In other words, the president cannot interfere with the selection of members and chairperson,” said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat reading out the ruling to the litigants, who appeared before the Court virtually from their respective residences.
The Court deemed the Petitioners’ petitum that Article 15 paragraph (5) of the Press Law be interpreted as “Presidential decrees are administrative in nature according to proposals or requests from press organizations, press companies, and journalists who are elected through a democratic press congress” could lead to non-uniformity when each press organization select their own Press Council members. The Petitioners’ objection was a concrete matter and not a constitutionality one. Not to mention, the presidential decree is a mere administrative decision to stipulate members who have been elected through a process determined in Article 15 paragraph (3) of the Press Law.
Based on the legal considerations, the Petitioners’ argument was declared legally groundless.
“The Court was authorized to rule on the a quo petition; the Petitioners had legal standing to file the a quo petition; the petition’s subject matter was legally groundless in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict alongside the other eight constitutional justices.
Also read:
Press Council’s Function in Drafting Regulations Called into Question
Govt: Press Council Facilitates Lawmaking in Press
Press Freedom Chaos Will Ensue If All Organizations Make Regulations
Press Council’s Regulations Impair Journalists’ Rights
House: Press Council Maintains Quality of the Press
Bagir Manan: Press Council Makes Rules Based on Convention
Press Council Represents State in Safeguarding National Press
JMSI: Press Council to Protect Freedom of the Press
Press Council Guarantees Quality of Public Information
The Petitioners challenged Article 15 paragraphs (2) letter f and (5) of the Press Law. Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f of the Press Law reads, “The Press Council has the following functions: facilitating press organizations in order to form regulations in press as well as increasing the quality of journalistic professionalism.” Meanwhile, Article 15 paragraph (5) reads, “Membership of the Press Council as stated in article (3) is stipulated by a Presidential Decree.”
At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, August 25, 2021, the Petitioners asserted that as owners of press companies and legal entities, they felt that their right to form an independent Press Council and to vote for and be elected as Press Council members democratically had been oppressed. In addition, they believe the provision has prevented them from appointing and inaugurating Press Council members. The Petitioners organized a national press congress in 2019, in which its members were appointed. However, due to Article 15 paragraph (5) of the Press Law, the results of the congress were not responded by the president.
The Petitioners also believe Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f of the Press Law must be reviewed because it had led to press organizations losing their right to formulate regulations in press. The Press Council interprets the a quo article that they have the authority to draft and stipulate regulations in press. Therefore, Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f of the Press Law contradicts Article 28, Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (3), Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution insofar as not interpreted as “in forming regulations in the press by each press organization” as it limits the press organizations’ right to develop freedom of the press and uphold the basic values of democracy, promote the rule of law and human rights, respect diversity, exercise supervision, critique, provide corrections and recommendations on public matters, as well as fight for truth and justice.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 9/7/2022 08:56 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 31, 2022 | 20:13 WIB 192