Petitioners Argue Revised Lawmaking Law Ineligible

The Petitioners and legal counsels attending the preliminary hearing of the formal judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking virtually, Monday (9/5/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

Monday, September 5, 2022 | 17:42 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a formal judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking (P3 Law) on Monday, September 5, 2022. The case No. 82/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by five Petitioners)—lecturers Islamil Hasani and Laurensius Arliman, university student Bayu Satria Utomo, the Congress of Indonesian Unions Alliance (KASBI), and the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI).

Before Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair), Arief Hidayat, and Suhartoyo, the Petitioners through legal counsel Shevierra Danmadiyah conveyed several backgrounds to the petition. They asserted that the second amendment to the Lawmaking Law did not meet the requirements for an open cumulative bill since it was not the follow-up on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020, which did not assert that the Lawmaking Law was unconstitutional. The Government and the House of Representatives (DPR) should have amended the problematic Job Creation Law, especially Article 64 paragraph (1) letter b, Article 72 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 73 paragraph (1), and Article 96 paragraph (3).

“The amended Lawmaking Law has clearly violated the planning aspect of and misused the open accumulative list as a loophole. Thus, the planning of the revision to the Lawmaking Law was unconstitutional because it did not heed the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 22A of the 1945 Constitution,” Shevierra asserted.

Hasty Discussion

The Petitioners also argued that the discussion of the Lawmaking Law had disregarded the public and was hasty. Flow of information relating to the Law only occurred one-way from lawmakers to the public through news articles, pamphlets, posters, and other simple means of communication. There was no room for feedback from the public, thus the public did not have any power to negotiate.

Next, legal counsel Sayyidatul Insiyah asserted that the Petitioners believed that the Lawmaking Law was the House’s initiative at the House plenary meeting on February 8, 2022 and was ratified on May 24, 2022. The discussion only took place from April 7 to May 24, 2022. The Petitioners also asserted that the Law had violated lawmaking principles, as it disregarded clarity of purpose, institutional value, implementation value, usability and effectiveness, clarity of formulation, and transparency.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat observed the signatures of the Petitioners’ 33 legal counsels. He also asked the Petitioners to reiterate the legal standing of individual petitioners and group ones. He also advised them to observe the touchstones. “The Court review [laws] against the 1945 Constitution. It would be funny if the old Lawmaking Law be used as touchstone,” he said.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo also commented on the legal counsels’ signatures. He noted that only 5 out of 33 signed the power of attorney. “Please fix this. Ensure [the ones who sign] can really be involved and assist the Petitioners in this case,” he said.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Petitioners to make arguments for their constitutional impairment.

Before concluding the hearing, the panel chair informed the Petitioners that they had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Monday, September 19, 2022. 

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/8/2022 11:57 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.

Monday, September 05, 2022 | 17:42 WIB 194