Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams, Enny Nurbaningsih, and M. Guntur Hamzah opening the panel petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, Monday (12/19/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Monday, December 19, 2022 | 12:24 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking on Monday, December 19, 2022. The petition No. 116/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Bonatua Silalahi and his company PT Bina Jasa Konstruksi, who question Article 1 point 6 of Law No. 12 of 2011, which reads, “Presidential Regulation means Legislation issued by the President to implement superior Legislation or to exercise the government’s authority.” He also questions Article 7 paragraph (1) and Article 13 of the Lawmaking Law and its elucidation.
At this second hearing, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams said that on December 17, the Registrar’s Office received a letter from the Petitioners. He proceeded to read out the letter: “The Honorable Chief Registrar, in relation to the hearing for case No. 116/PUU-XX/2022, as Petitioners we hereby withdraw the petition and walk out from the judicial review petition to follow the advice of the constitutional justices. We thank [the Court] for [its] extraordinary public services and attention [to the petition].” Justice Wahiduddin, alongside Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and M. Guntur Hamzah, asked the Petitioners for confirmation relating the letter.
Silalahi confirmed the letter and the Petitioners’ wish to withdraw the petition.
Also read: Constitutionality of Presidential Regulation Questioned
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners alleged that the Lawmaking Law was problematic because it did not mention that the position of the presidential regulation was different from that in the 1945 Constitution. In the petition, the Petitioners explained that the a quo article, which stipulates that the presidential regulation (perpres) is a new and statutory regulation direct under the government regulation (PP) and higher than the provincial and city/regency regulation, could create legal uncertainty for the Petitioners regarding the basis for forming the presidential regulation, especially those to exercise government power.
The Petitioners also believe that the phrase ‘or to exercise the government’s authority’ in the article could also lead to multiple interpretations, including the presidential regulation being allowed to be made without any mandate from a law or higher statutory regulation. In addition, the formation of a presidential regulation can also result in intervention and even an exchange of power. For this reason, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare the presidential regulation not a direct derivative of the 1945 Constitution and eliminate the phrase ‘or to exercise the government’s authority’ and declare it null and void.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 12/20/2022 15:12 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.