Rega Felix, the Petitioner, conveying the subject matter of his petition at the panel preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance, Tuesday (6/13/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Rega Felix, an advocate and owner of culinary business “Felix Burger,” challenges Article 34 paragraph (2) of Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance (JPH) and Article 48 points 19-20 of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation, which contain amendment to Article 33 paragraph (5) and Article 33A paragraph (1) of the JPH Law. The preliminary hearing to examine the case No. 58/PUU-XXI/2023 took place in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, June 13, 2023

Article 34 paragraph (2) of the JPH Law reads, “In case the Halal Fatwa Assembly as intended in Article 33 paragraph (2) declared the Product not halal, BPJPH returns the Halal Certificate application to the Business Operator along with the reason.”

Article 48 point 19 of the Job Creation Perppu reads, “In the event that the time limit referred to in paragraph (3) is exceeded, the determination of product halalness is carried out by the halal product fatwa committee based on the provisions of the halal fatwa.”

Article 48 point 20 of the Job Creation Perppu reads, “In the event that the application for halal certification is carried out by micro- and small business actors through a halal statement, the determination of product halalness is carried out by the halal product fatwa committee based on the provisions of the halal fatwa.”

Before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Suhartoyo, the Petitioner alleged that the mandatory halal product insurance system is subject to legal disputes such as those on the determination of halal or non-halal brand names. The JPH and Job Creation Laws, he argued, which led to the establishment various fatwa institutions such as the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) and the Halal Product Committee, had led to higher potential of dispute.

He believes Article 34 paragraph (2) of the JPH Law and Article 48 point 19 of the appendix to the Job Creation Law, which specifically contain amendment to Article 33 paragraph (5) of the JPH Law, and Article 48 point 20 of the appendix to the Job Creation Law, which specifically contains addition to Article 33 paragraph (1) of the JPH Law, do not explain the mechanism in the event of disputes caused by a halal fatwa issued by either the MUI or the Halal Product Committee. Without a clear interpretation of the articles, he argues, there would be chaos in the halal product guarantee system, such as conflicts on the halalness of a brand name between the MUI and the Halal Product Committee. When there is no clear legal remedy, the Petitioner could suffer constitutional impairment despite him having been protected under Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (2), and Article 29 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the petition, he stated that the Halal Product Committee’s foundation has had a legal basis. However, he added, there has to be an explanation on legal measures through the religious court to solve contradiction between fatwas when such issues take place. “This is a constitutionality issue. Because the Job Creation does not explain that, [I made] an effort through the Constitutional Court,” he said.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court grant the entire petition and “Declare Article 34 paragraph (2) of the JPH Law unconstitutional and not legally binding conditionally insofar as it is not interpreted ‘halal fatwas that declare certain products to be non-halal can be challenged through the religious court,’” he said.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised that the Court’s authority and the petitum be explained in more detail, since the petitum is the representation of the posita. “In this petition, you also asked that the request for halal certification of products be provided a legal avenue when the request is rejected. What to elaborate in the posita is, of course, first, the type of the legal measure. Is it an appeal? An objection?” he asked.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih asked the Petitioner to elaborate more comprehensively the issue that could happen when requesting a halal certification.

Before adjourning the session, Justice Enny gave the Petitioner 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office by Monday, June 26. The Registrar’s Office will then schedule a second hearing to examine the revised petition.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---