Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations for the judicial review of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Transparency (KIP), Monday (10/31/2022). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
Monday, October 31, 2022 | 15:24 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled Article 2 paragraph (4), 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), as well as Article 52 of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Transparency (KIP) not having resulted in injustice, legal uncertainty, and infringement of personal rights that are guaranteed in the Constitution. Therefore, it declared the Petitioner’s argument legally groundless.
The legal considerations were read out by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul at a ruling hearing on Monday, October 31, 2022. In Decision No. 88/PUU-XX/2022, the Court rejected the entire petition.
“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict.
In its legal considerations, the Court emphasized that the exceptions in Article 2 paragraph (4) of the KIP Law are justified in order to provide fair protection. So, although every public institution provide access to public information to the public, there are strict and limited exceptions to public information that cannot be provided by public institutions, as stipulated in Articles 6 and 17 of the KIP Law.
“One of [it] is ‘information related to personal rights.’ The Court believes if such public information is disclosed, it can actually have negative impacts. Thus, the Petitioner’s argument on Article 2 paragraph (4) of the KIP Law was legally groundless,” Justice Manahan said when reading out the Court’s legal considerations.
Not Under Constitutional Court’s Jurisdiction
In relation to the Petitioner’s argument on the phrase ‘personal rights’ in Article 6 paragraph (3) letter c, that the phrase ‘contents of an authentic personal deed’ in Article 17 letter g, the phrase ‘personal secrets, namely financial condition, assets, income “In Article 17 letter h number 3, and Article 20 paragraph (1) of the KIP Law, which the Petitioners have requested to give meaning by the Court to exclude public information that has been excluded in the Law, according to the Court, this matter is no longer relevant for further consideration. Moreover, continued Manahan, this is also not the domain of the Court’s authority to resolve concrete cases experienced by the Petitioners.
“Thus, according to the Court, the Petitioner’s petition regarding Article 6 paragraph (3) letter c, Article 17 letter g, Article 17 letter h number 3, and Article 20 paragraph (1) of Law 14/2008 is groundless according to law,” Manahan explained.
The Petitioner, Sulistya Tirtoutomo, divorced from Soeprawiro Ing Widjojo 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 11/2/2022 09:15 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.