Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the Court’s decree on the withdrawl of the judicial review petition of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, Tuesday (1/31/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Tuesday, January 31, 2023 | 11:40 WIB
Tuesday, January 31, 2023 | 11:40 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) handed down the Decree No. 116/PUU-XX/2022 on the judicial review hearing of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking on Tuesday, January 31, 2023. The petition was filed by Bonatua Silalahi and his company PT Bina Jasa Konstruksi,
The decree was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices in the plenary courtroom. The Court approved the withdrawal of the petition. “[The Court] grants the withdrawal of the Petitioners’ petition,” he said reading out the verdict.
The chief justice said that, according to Article 34 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court held a preliminary hearing on December 5, 2022 to hear the petition.
“After the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners sent two letters on the withdrawal of the petition by email on December 17 and 19, 2022. The Court had held a second hearing on December 19, 2022 to hear the revisions to the Petitioners’ petition, where the Petitioners affirmed that they [would like to] withdraw the petition,” he said.
Chief Justice Anwar Usman also said that Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law stipulates that the petitioners could withdraw their petition before or during the Court’s examination while paragraph (2) stipulates that the withdrawal as referred to in paragraph (1) results in the petition not being able to be re-filed. He also revealed that the justices in its deliberation meeting had ordered the chief registrar to record the withdrawal in the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK) and to return the petition’s copy to the Petitioners.
“Over the withdrawal request, the justice deliberation meeting on January 12, 2023 had decided that the withdrawal of the case No. 116/PUU-XX/2022 was legally valid and, thus, the Petitioners cannot re-file the a quo petition,” he explained.
Constitutionality of Presidential Regulation Questioned
Petitioners Withdraw Petition on Presidential Regulation
The Petitioners questioned 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.” They also questioned Article 7 paragraph (1) and Article 13 of the Lawmaking Law and its elucidation. They 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) was 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 believed 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 could 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 1/31/2023 14:07 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.