Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade as amended by Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Thursday (9/29/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Thursday, September 29, 2022 | 19:45 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) decided not to grant the petition by Rizky Puguh Wibowo, Zainal Hudha Purnama, and Minggus Umboh on Article 9 of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade as amended by Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation and rejected the Petitioners’ petition for the rest and remained. The verdict in the Decision No. 84/PUU-XX/2022 was read out on Thursday, September 29, 2022.

The Court examined the petition at a preliminary hearing on Tuesday, September 6. Following Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 41 paragraph (3) of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021 on the Procedural Law for Judicial Review Cases, the panel of justices provided advice to the Petitioners to revise and clarify the posita and petitum. The Petitioners had 14 workdays to revise the petition, which was then re-examined on September 19.

After carefully examining the revised petition, the Court found the Petitioners’ request relating to the Elucidation of Article 9 of the Trade Law unusual, resulting in inconsistent and incoherent petita. “Consequently, what the Petitioners petitioned for became unclear,” said Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto alongside Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices.

Also read: e-Book and Trading Robot Suppliers Challenge Trade Law

Legal Basis

The Court asserted that Article 1 point 5 of the Trade Law, which the Petitioners believed correlated with the Elucidation to Article 9 of the Trade Law, particularly the word ‘goods,’ was a general provision in the Trade Law that applies to several other articles. In fact, Justice Aswanto added, it would become the legal basis for other norms. Thus, it must be interpreted with caution.

“Any change to that basis norm must consider other correlating articles, so it would not cause confusion,” he said.

Also read: e-Book and Trading Robot Suppliers Revise Petition

Not Appropriate

The Petitioners’ request of re-interpretation of Article 1 point 5 of the Trade Law by adding the phrase ‘including electronic books and trading robots,’ the Court asserted, would affect the structure of Trade Law, especially articles related to the definition of the word ‘goods.’ In addition, Justice Aswanto explained, it would not be appropriate for it to be included in the general provisions because it was not a general description, but even required further explanation. Thus, the addition would create legal uncertainty about the word ‘goods.’

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/17/2022 14:44 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.

---