Bayu Dwi Anggono testifying as an expert for the Government virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking, Thursday (9/22/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Thursday, September 22, 2022 | 15:43 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 the Formation of Legislation (Lawmaking/P3 Law) on Thursday, September 22, 2022. At the seventh hearing for case No. 69/PUU-XX/2022, the president/Government presented two experts: Bayu Dwi Anggono, a law lecturer at the University of Jember, and Ahmad Redi, an associate professor of the law doctorate program at Borobudur University Jakarta.

Bayu Dwi Anggono asserted that it is impossible to assess whether a law have brought benefits and is able to regulate the lives of the people, nation, and state before it has been enacted after a period of time. As such, any revision to the law is possible if the people deem it necessary. This is done after some observation and study, which can inform the law’s future improvement.

“It can be done through amendment or replacement, which begins with planning in the Prolegnas [(National Legislative Program)],” he explained virtually before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices.

Also read: Lawmaking Law Challenged by Labor Party for Alleged Potential to Revive Job Creation Law 

Principle of Clarity

Whether the Elucidation to Article 72 paragraph (1a) of the Lawmaking Law has followed the lawmaking technical requirements and format, and whether its diction and language is clear and comprehensible can be assessed by the guidelines regulated in the second appendix of the Lawmaking Law, especially points 174 to 191 on the drafting of elucidation.

“Therefore, if an elucidation has been drafted based on those guidelines, it can be declared having met the principle of clarity,” he said.

Also read: Labor Party Focuses on Formal Petition Against Lawmaking Law 

Catalyst for Lawmaking

In his testimony, Ahmad Redi said the Lawmaking Law could be a catalyst for lawmaking in Indonesia because it has truly, consistently, and consequently implemented the Constitutional Court’s order. Through the omnibus law, it has introduced extraordinary structural and substance reforms in lawmaking. He believes it can resolve legislation dysfunction effectively and efficiently.

“It carries the spirit of lawmaking efficiency and effectiveness through the omnibus law. For the legitimacy of standard legal basis on which lawmaking is based through the omnibus law, the Lawmaking Law acts as a catalyst between the legist-positive lawmaking and the progressive spirit of lawmaking reform,” he asserted.

Also read: Petitioners’ Signatures’ Authenticity Checked in Formal Case Against Lawmaking Law

Expert Team’s Involvement

The Government/president also presented two witnesses: Sony Maulana S., a law lecturer of the University of Indonesia, and Aidul Fitriciada Azhari, a law professor at the Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.

Aidul revealed his involvement as part of a lawmaking expert team, which he believes was the legislature’s effort to promote public participation, especially in academia. He was the only representative of the Muhammadiyah higher education (PTM). He was also invited to review the theoretical review of the academic text of the revision to the Lawmaking Bill on February 2-4, 2022, especially on the issue of omnibus law and meaningful participation.

“I got involved as an academic in the drafting of the Lawmaking Bill since December 2021 until March 2022. In essence, my involvement was public participation in lawmaking as regulated in the Lawmaking Law,” he said.

Also read: Govt Responds to Labor Party’s Allegations on Lawmaking Law 

Recommendation by Academics

Sony Maulana S. revealed that he attended five discussion meetings of the Lawmaking Bill by the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs in February-March 2022 in Jakarta as an academic. He found that the problem inventory list (DIM) of the Lawmaking Bill was discussed at those meetings.

He also gave recommendations at the meetings. At the first one on Monday, February 28, 2022, he recommended that the omnibus law not be mentioned and defined in the General Provisions of the bill because they do not usually mention other terms and their definitions. This recommendation was accepted, then the definition was relocated to the elucidation.

At the fourth meeting on Monday, March 21, in which the DIM was finalized, Sony recommended that the additional substance in Appendix 238 be removed, as it was not part of the drafting technique, but merely a policy by the ministry or institution so that the law be more publicly accessible. “The Government accepted [the input],” he said.

Also read:

Supriansa: Formation of Lawmaking Law Met Openness Principle  

Violation in Formation of 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, as well as Ramidi, Riden Hatam Aziz, R. Abdullah, Agus Ruli Ardiansyah, Ilhamsyah, Sunandar, Didi Suprijadi, and Hendrik Hutagalung. 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. Therefore, they felt the need to ensure the Lawmaking Law, which would be used as an entryway to discussing the Job Creation Law, be declared invalid by the Constitutional Court. 

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/12/2022 10:25 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.

---