The judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking to hear the revisions to the petition, Monday (9/19/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Monday, September 19, 2022 | 15:28 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another 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 19, 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 counsels Sayyidatul Insiyah and Shevierra Danmadiyah conveyed several revisions to the petition. They revised the argument of constitutional impairment based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 27/PUU-VII/2009, elaborated the filing of the petition based on several Constitutional Court decisions, reiterated the touchstones, elaborated the academic text for the bill of the Law being petitioned, and added an argument to assert that the Law had been used to legitimize the Job Creation Law.
“We also submit proof of media [news] on the technical changes of the Lawmaking Law in relation to the Job Creation Law. We also include the results of our observation of the parliament’s TV YouTube channel on discussions between the House and universities on the drafting of the bill,” said Shevierra Danmadiyah at the hearing, which the Petitioners and their legal counsels attended virtually.
At the preliminary hearing on Monday, September 5, 2022, the Petitioners 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 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.
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.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 9/20/2022 11:19 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.