The ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, Thursday (6/15/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) granted the judicial review petition of Article 96 paragraph (6) of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking on Thursday, June 15, 2023. The case No. 44/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by two students of the International University of Bintan, Albert Ola Masan Setiawan Muda and Andrew Chua.

Chief Justice Anwar Usman stated that the Court had held a preliminary hearing on Thursday, May 11. Then, on Tuesday, May 23, the Court received an email dated May 21 that requested the withdrawal of the petition. It had also received verbal confirmation on the withdrawal from the Petitioners on Monday, May 29. Then, the Court had determined at a justice deliberation meeting on June 5 that, based on Article 35 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law, the withdrawal request was legally grounded. Thus, the Court declare the Petitioners unable to refile the petition.

“[The Court] grants the withdrawal of the Petitioners’ petition; declares the petition for case No. 44/PUU-XXI/2023 on the judicial review of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia withdrawn; declares the Petitioners unable to refile the a quo petition,” Chief Justice Anwar declared when handing down the decree from the plenary courtroom.

Also read: 

Significance of Public Participation in Lawmaking

Two UIB Students Withdraw Petition against Lawmaking Law 

The Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of provisions on public consultation activities in Article 96 paragraph (6) of the Lawmaking Law, which reads, “To fulfill the rights as referred to in paragraph (1), the legislators may conduct public consultation activities through (a) public hearings; (b) work visits; (c) seminars, workshops, discussions; and/or (d) other public consultation activities.”

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, May 11, 2023, legal counsel Risky Kurniawan asserted that the Petitioners feel their constitutional rights had been harmed by the enactment of the article. He said the word “may” did not make conducting public consultation activities mandatory, but merely optional. As such, the Petitioners argued that in order to mandate public participation, the word ‘may’ should be replaced by “shall.” In more concrete terms, they made an analogy with the Job Creation Law, which the Court declared conditionally unconstitutional due to formal flaw stemming from the lack of public participation.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 96 paragraph (6) of Law No. 13 of 2022 conditionally constitutional, insofar as the word “may” be changed to “shall.”

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
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.

---