Yusril Ihza Mahendra, representing the Petitioner, at the petition revision hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, Monday (7/24/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of the elucidation to Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking on Monday, July 24, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The petition No. 66/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by the Crescent Star Party (PBB), represented by chairman Yusril Ihza Mahendra and secretary-general Afriansyah Noor.
Yusril Ihza Mahendra, who attended the hearing in person, said that revisions had been made following the justices’ advice and the argument had been affirmed and broadened in order to clarify the petition.
“We also clarified and strengthened the legal standing and explanation of constitutional impairment that the Petitioner suffered that drove them to file the judicial review petition,” Yusril emphasized before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams.
He also explained that based on the party’s statute/bylaw, he is the legal representative for the Crescent Star Party.
“In the argument for the background of the petition, we talked a little bit about the aspects of formal review of the elucidation to the article petitioned for review, which is based on Article 51A of the Constitutional Court Law. If the Court formally reviews the Law, the touchstone would be the Lawmaking Law. Meanwhile, what we request to review is Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b of the Lawmaking Law with the provisions in the norm and the regulations in the law on lawmaking, especially the contradiction between the norms in Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b and the elucidation,” he stressed.
He added that the elucidation only explained sentences or terms but the elucidation to the Lawmaking Law cannot contain norms.
Also read: Constitutionality of MPR’s Authority Questioned
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner asserted that with the amendment of articles regulating the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) in the 1945 Constitution, the removal of the elucidation as an integral part of the basic law, means there has been a fundamental change of the MPR as the only institution that exercises the sovereignty of the people and is the “highest state institution” and at the same time as the embodiment of “all Indonesian people.”
The Petitioner believes regulating MPR decrees has saved the state during at least three constitutional crises. First, the temporary MPRS issued a decree that prohibited Marxism and Leninism after the G30S (30 September Movement) of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) rebellion in 1965, after previously Supersemar-bearer General Soeharto dissolved the PKI on March 3, 1966. Second, the MPRS issued a beshickking stipulation to establish the Supersemar-bearer as the acting president of the Republic of Indonesia after President Soekarno was dismissed by the MPRS in 1967. Third, the MPR issued a decree regarding the president’s accountability through memoranda I and II that could dismiss the president. This provision made the impeachment of President Abdurrahman Wahid legal and constitutional. Fourth, the MPR issued Decree No. VII/MPR/1973 on absence of the president and/or vice president, which was used as to impeach President Soeharto and swear in President B.J. Habibie before the Chief Supreme Justice, when the MPR was unable to convene due to the monetary crisis of 1998. This decree made the resignation of President Suharto and the swearing-in of Vice President BJ Habibie as his successor legal and constitutional.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S.F.
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.
Monday, July 24, 2023 | 15:36 WIB 141