The Petitioner conveying revisions to the petition at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 33 of 2014 on Halal Product Assurance, Monday (6/26/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Hendy.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of 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, Article 33 paragraph (5) and Article 33A paragraph (1) of the JPH Law on Monday, June 26, 2023. The petition revision hearing for case No. 58/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by Rega Felix, an advocate and owner of culinary business “Felix Burger.”

At the hearing, the Petitioner conveyed the revisions following the justices’ recommendations. “[I] added quantitative data as additional argument. Based on data in 2022, throughout the year the [Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI)] had issued halal certificates for 105,326 businesspeople. Based on data by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, in 40 days since its formation, the Halal Product Fatwa Committee issued 78,948 halal certificates. The ministry targeted 10 million of halal certificates in 2024 with the assumption that the ration be 1.053% of the target. If the committee is consistent, it one-year coverage ratio will be 7.105%. A combination of the two would be 8.158%,” he said.

The Petitioner also added an explanation of the legal measures for halal disputes and revised the petitum by explaining which phrases he request that the Court declare conditionally unconstitutional. He also added one petitum, where he requests that the Court declare a clause that the determination of product halalness be done by the Halal Product Committee in Article 48 point 19 of the appendix of Law No. 6 of 2023 on the Stipulation of Perppu No. 2 of 2022 on Job Creation unconstitutional.

Also read: Petitioner Questions Institution Authorized to Judge Halal Disputes

At the preliminary hearing for the case on Tuesday, June 13, 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 disputes.

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.

He sees the need for constitutional interpretation of the a quo article to avoid serious constitutional issues. As such, he argues, there are legal grounds for the Court to declare Article 34 paragraph (2) of the JPH Law and Article 48 points 19-20 of the Job Creation Law, which contains the addition of Article 33 paragraph (5) and Article 33A paragraph (1) of the JPH Law, unconstitutional.

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.

---