Formation of Lawmaking Law Following 1945 Constitution
Image

House Commission III member Supriansa explaining the formation of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, Tuesday (11/8/2022). Photo by MKRI/Panji.


Tuesday, November 8, 2022 | 14:14 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the sixth 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 Tuesday, November 8, 2022. The hearing for case No. 82/PUU-XX/2022 had been set to hear the House of Representatives (DPR). Before the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, House Commission III member Supriansa explained the formation of the a quo Law and the follow-up to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.

“With its legal considerations, the Court ordered the immediate formation of a standard legal basis to serve as guidelines for lawmaking using the omnibus method, which has specificity,” he said.

The House asserted that the Lawmaking Law had been formed following good lawmaking principles in order to prevent formal defects. “The formation of the a quo Law stated from the spirit to perfect the provisions on lawmaking, which no longer fit the legal development and needs of society,” Supriansa explained.

He asserted that the Constitutional Court had ruled a formal judicial review petition of the Lawmaking Law had in Decision 69/PUU-XX/2022 on October 31 and declared the formation of the Law not in violation of the principles of usability, effectiveness, clarity, and transparency through a series of activities to promote public participation. In addition, the Court ruled its formation not unconstitutional. Therefore, Law No. 13 of 2022 remains legally binding.

“Therefore, the House appeals to the Court to hand down a verdict and declare the Petitioners not having legal standing, declare the a quo petition inadmissible, reject the petition in its entirety, or at least declare it inadmissible; to accept the House’s testimony in its entirety and declare the entire formation process of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking to have followed the 1945 Constitution and in compliance with the lawmaking provisions as referred to in Law No. 2 of 2011 on Lawmaking,” Supriansa asserted.

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        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/8/2022 15:30 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.


Tuesday, November 08, 2022 | 14:14 WIB 48