Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking, Monday (10/17/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Monday, October 17, 2022 | 13:39 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, October 17, 2022. The fourth hearing for case No. 82/PUU-XX/2022 had been set to hear the House of Representatives (DPR). However, the House was indisposed and had sent a letter to request that the hearing be delayed.

“The House requested through a letter that the hearing be delayed. Therefore, the Court would ask the Petitioners whether they would present experts or witnesses for the case,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman asked the Petitioners’ legal counsel.

Counsel Aprillia Lisa Tengker said the Petitioners would present one witness and three experts at the next hearing. The Court decided to postpone the hearing until Thursday, October 27 at 11:00 WIB and requested that the CV and written testimonies be submitted to the Registrar’s Office two days before the hearing at the latest.

Also read:

Petitioners Argue Revised Lawmaking Law Ineligible 

Petitioners of Lawmaking Law Submit Observation Results 

Govt Asserts Lawmaking Bill in Prolegnas Priority List 2022 

The petition 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).

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, September 5, 2022, the Petitioners asserted that the second amendment to the Lawmaking Law had not met 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 10/18/2022 11:58 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.

---