Court Rejects Another Petition on Lawmaking Law
Image

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Lawmaking Law, Tuesday (12/20/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.


Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | 20:17 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the material judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking (P3 Law). 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).

“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict on Tuesday, December 20, 2022.

The Petitioners argued that the establishment of the Lawmaking Law was the institutionalization of legislative disruption that led to autocratic legalism. In its legal considerations presented by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Court asserted that the formation of Lawmaking Law began with the intention of improving lawmaking legislation that are in accordance with legal developments and of accommodating the community’s needs and the developments of legislation. This coincided with the preparation of theoretical study and empirical practice on 2 major themes: the omnibus method and public participation that are adapted to advances in information technology.

“In lawmaking practice there are several problems, such as the omnibus method that has not been as an implication of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 91/PUU-XVIII/2020,” Justice Wahiduddin said.

The method was aimed at preventing overlapping, ineffective, and inefficient laws that could lead to legal uncertainty. As such, as long as the intention to create legal certainty is maintained, such concern is unreasonable because the lawmaking process is based on philosophical, sociological, and juridical aspects. Not to mention, based on the legal facts revealed during proceedings and without intending to judge the constitutionality of the law in question, the omnibus method has had a positive impact on lawmaking and the development of national law. Thus, the regulation of public participation mechanisms has had a positive impact on realizing good governance in a democratic and transparent legislation process. As such, the formation of Law No. 13 of 2022 has been much transparent compared to that of Law No. 12 of 2011, the Court emphasized.

“Therefore, based on the aforementioned legal facts, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners’ allegation that the formation of Law No. 13 of 2022 had institutionalized legislative disruption and led to autocratic legalism was unreasonable according to law. Therefore, the Court believes that it has been proven that the formal process of formulating Law No. 13 of 2022 did not conflict with the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, Law No. 13 of 2022 still has binding legal force. Thus, the Petitioners’ arguments are completely groundless according to law,” Justice Wahiduddin 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 

Formation of Lawmaking Law Following 1945 Constitution 

Legal Politics of Lawmaking Law Results in Constitutional Violation

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 12/22/2022 14:23 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, December 20, 2022 | 20:17 WIB 213
  • Budi Wibowo Halim (Pemohon) menyampaikan pokok-pokok perbaikan atas permohonan Perkara Nomor 117/PUU-XXI/2023. Foto Humas/Ifa

    Image 1
  • Majelis Sidang Panel yang di ketuai oleh Hakim Konstitusi Enny Nurbaningsih. Foto Humas/Fauzan

    Image 2