The Constitutional Court rejecting the petition No. 51/PUU-XX/2022 on the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade, Monday (10/31/2022). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
Monday, October 31, 2022 | 15:12 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) handed down Decision No. 51/PUU-XX/2022 for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2014 on Trade on Monday, October 31, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. “[The Court] rejected the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict alongside the other eight constitutional justices.
In the legal considerations presented by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Court asserted that in trading basic necessities and/or essential goods, there are fundamental differences between storing and stockpiling. Storing concerns raw or auxiliary materials in the production process or supply for distribution. Meanwhile, in stockpiling there is an intention to speculate in order to obtain profits beyond reason, especially when there is a shortage of goods, price fluctuations, and/or barriers to trade traffic. Stockpiling is storing beyond the normal average need or stock or inventory for 3 months in various ways, such as by manipulating data and/or information on the goods.
There is a need for a clear definition of ‘storing’ and ‘stockpiling.’ The Court believes that it depends on the number/amount of goods being stored and the time limit. Reasonable number/amount is necessary for smooth daily transaction and good continuation of the production process, so that if the number/amount of goods has exceeded the specified limit, it can be categorized as stockpiling. Time limit is necessary so that it does not interfere with the circulation of goods in the market and the continuity of the production.
The determination of this number/amount and time limit, the Court asserted, should be left in the hand of the relevant institutions that oversees the commodity in question, since the shelf life of each commodity differs.
“The Court understands the Petitioner’s problem, which compelled him to conclude that the phrase ‘in a certain amount and period of time’ has led to stockpiling of cooking oil in abnormal conditions, thus disrupting his business,” said Justice Manahan reading out the legal considerations.
General Provisions
The Court emphasized that the Trade Law was established to accommodate a wide scope and variety of commodities, thus cannot regulate everything in great detail as it might reduce flexibility for the regulated commodities. In order to be more extensive, the Trade Law must be more general, while its implementation is regulated in legal products under it.
Similarly, the phrase ‘in a certain amount and period of time’ in Article 29 paragraph (1) must be seen as a general provision for various types of basic necessities and/or essential goods, where each has different characteristics. Therefore, the phrase becomes a substance that must be regulated in the implementing regulations of the Trade Law. Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, if the Court accommodated the Petitioner’s request to eliminate the phrase in Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law, it would result in prohibition against storing basic necessities and/or essential goods without exception, even in the event of scarcity, price fluctuations, and/or trade restrictions.
This would actually cause chaos in society and create legal uncertainty because there would not be any clear criteria for when storing constitutes stockpiling and be subject to criminal punishments. Nevertheless, the implementation of this norm could potentially cause problems in the field, so it is necessary for the Court to emphasize the importance of strict supervision of storage and distribution, especially of basic necessities and/or important goods during scarcity, price fluctuations, and/or trade restrictions. Such supervision is necessary because in general there are still loopholes that business actors and law enforcement officers could use to abuse the provisions of a quo article. Therefore, it is necessary to have supervision by law enforcers with integrity with participation of the community, especially the task force as stipulated in the a quo Law.
Thus, based on the aforementioned legal considerations, Article 29 paragraph (1) of Law No.7 of 2014 has provided a guarantee for decent work and does not cause legal uncertainty, thus not in conflict with Article 27 paragraph (2) and Article 28D paragraph (1) 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument is legally groundless.
Also read:
Cooking Oil Scarcity Compels Pecel Lele Vendor to Challenge Trade Law
Pecel Lele Vendor Revises Petition on Trade Law
Govt Explains Public Bulk Cooking Oil Program
Expert’s Testimony Came Late, Court Delays Hearing for Trade Law
House Responds to Pecel Lele Vendor on Goods Scarcity
Ditha Wiradiputra Reveals Provision on Stockpiling and Storage
The petition for case No. 51/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Muhammad Hasan Basri, a pecel lele vendor, who challenged Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law, which reads, “Business actors shall be prohibited from stockpiling basic need goods and/or essential goods in a certain amount and time in the event of scarcity of goods, price fluctuations, and/or trade restrictions in Trade of Goods.”
At the preliminary hearing on April 26, the Petitioner asserted that Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law had impaired his constitutional rights due to irregular distribution and storage of cooking oil, which led to scarcity and price hikes. “Although the norm contains prohibition, distributors are able to store cooking oil in certain quantity and period of time. This is what we challenge, Your Honors, the norm relating to certain quantity and period of time,” said legal counsel Ahmad Irawan.
He added that cooking oil scarcity made it difficult for the Petitioner to do his business. Meanwhile, high price would affect the Petitioner’s buying power and the prices of his products, thus hindering his business.
“Scarce or expensive cooking oil, based on logical reasoning, can put the Petitioner out of business. If [so], the Petitioner and his family cannot earn decent living, while as a citizen, pursuant to Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, he is entitled to decent work for humanity,” he stressed.
In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Trade Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 11/1/2022 13:25 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.
Monday, October 31, 2022 | 15:12 WIB 138