Panel of constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the judicial review hearing of the Village Law, Thursday (7/27/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Article 29 letter g, Article 51 letter g, and Article 64 letter h of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages on Thursday, July 27, 2023. The petition No. 76/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Mahmudi, a village apparatus.

Before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Wahiduddin Adams, the Petitioner virtually conveyed that his constitutional rights, which are guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, had been violated by the provision that puts prohibition on becoming political party executive members in Article 29 letter g, Article 51 letter g, and Article 64 letter h of the Village Law.

He believes that he has the right to develop himself by meeting his basic needs, through education as well as knowledge, technology, art, and culture, in order to improve his living and for the welfare of humankind. He added that he also has the right to fight for his right to collectively develop the community, nation, and state. He also argued he had the right to political education from political parties, in line with the function of political parties. This right had not been fulfilled, he said, due to the articles.

The Petitioner emphasized that he had received unfair, discriminatory treatment and had not been given equal opportunity in government by the provisions of Article 29 letter g, Article 51 letter g, and Article 64 letter h of the Village Law because even president, vice president, ministers, House of Representatives (DPR) and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) members, and heads of regions are not prohibited from being political party members/executives, while village apparatuses are.

In his petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 29 letter g, Article 51 letter g, and Article 64 letter h of the Village Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih asked the Petitioner to revise the format of the petition, starting by completing the articles petitioned. “Since this is the first time for you, please read the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021. You will understand the format of a petition. Also refer to other petitions or Court decisions. Please observe the explanation of the Court’s authority, legal standing, as well as the background of the petition or posita, and petitum. Those are four of the key things. The content is a problem hear. Please revise the elaboration of the Court’s authority, although the Constitution has been mentioned. Add the Judicial Law, the Constitutional Court Law, and the Lawmaking Law,” she explained.

Next, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams asked the Petitioner to affirm that the Law prohibits village apparatuses from becoming party executives, but not party members. “So, you have a chance to participate [in politics]. Once again, differentiate between party executives and members. Don’t come to a conclusion hastily. The posita must be strong,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat requested that the Petitioner find the contradiction between the articles petitioned and articles of the Constitution. “To strengthen the argument, there needs to be quotes of legal theories, expert opinions, more data, or other documents. There could be comparative studies to reference to strengthen the background of the petition. Please also revise the petitum,” he stressed.

Before adjourning the session, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat announced that the Petitioner had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office no later than Wednesday, August 9 at 10:00 WIB.  

Author       : Sri Pujianti
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.

---