Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih opening the panel petition revision hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Transparency (KIP), Tuesday (10/11/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Tuesday, October 11, 2022 | 16:56 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Transparency (KIP) on Tuesday, October 11, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The hearing for case No. 88/PUU-XX/2022 by Sulistya Tirtoutomo had been set to examine the revised petition. It was presided over by Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.
Legal counsel I Wayan Suka Wirawan conveyed the revisions to the petition: the latest Constitutional Court Regulation on the Court’s authority, summary of legal facts in the case the Petitioner is involved in, legal facts from the Surabaya District Court, and the background to the petition.
“The most crucial thing was revision to petitum 1. To grant the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” he said. The Petitioner argues that Article 6 paragraph (3) letter c, Article 17 letter g, Article 17 letter h point 3, Article 20 paragraph (1), Article 38 paragraph (2), Article 45 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 2 paragraph (4), and Article 52 of the KIP Law is unconstitutional.
Also read: Access to Information on Matrimonial Property Restricted, KIP Law Challenged
The Petitioner and Soeprawiro Ing Widjojo have been divorced based on the Decision of the Surabaya District Court No. 82/Pdt.G/2002/PN.Sby dated April 23, 2002. The Petitioner questioned the ownership of land and house building in Mansion Park Blok MP I Kav. No. 10 Citraland City, Jeruk Village, Lakarsantri Subdistrict, Surabaya City, East Java, which Soeprawiro Ing Widjojo (the Petitioner’s ex-husband) purchased, which is (supposedly) a joint asset.
The Petitioner’s ex-husband refused to share their joint assets, against which she then filed a civil lawsuit, for which she required a copy of the certificate along with the land certificate for the house. However, she could not obtain the certificate or its copy because was not involved in making the sale and purchase deed (AJB) and transferring the title to the house. She then visited the land office to find information, but her request was rejected. She then submitted a request for settlement of the public information dispute to the East Java Provincial Information Commission (KIP).
However, the dispute was not resolved even 225 days after the request was filed. Therefore, the Petitioner claimed that the enactment of Article 2 paragraph (4) of the KIP Law has violated her constitutional rights, especially those in relation to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, because the classification of exempted (confidential) public information is based on usefulness rather than justice.
The Petitioner also believes Article 6 paragraph (3) letter c, Article 17 letter g, Article 17 letter h point 3, Article 20 paragraph (1) of the KIP Law to be vague because they have created uncertain implementation by the competent institutions in handling public information disputes due to its generality. Wayan added that the Court is obligated to stop such uncertainty, which constitutes an issue of constitutionality.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 10/17/2022 21:19 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.