Provisions on Public Participation in Lawmaking Questioned
Image

Almizan Ulfa, a retired senior researcher of the Ministry of Finance, elaborating his judicial review petition of the Lawmaking Law, Thursday (8/24/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — Almizan Ulfa, a retired civil servant senior researcher of the Ministry of Finance, filed a material judicial review petition of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking. The preliminary hearing for case No. 82/PUU-XXI/2023 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams, Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

At the hearing in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms on Thursday, August 24, 2023, the Petitioner—who attended without any legal counsels—alleged that Article 96 paragraphs (6), (8), and (9) of the Lawmaking Law are contrary to the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution as well as Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. He questions the inconsistency between the phrase “has the right to” in Article 96 paragraph (1) of the Lawmaking Law and the word “may” in the same article in paragraphs (6), (8), and (9). Article 96 paragraphs (1) of the Lawmaking Law reads, “The public has the right to provide inputs verbally and/or in writing at any stages of lawmaking.”

In order to fulfil this right, the Government is obligated to listen to, consider, and provide answers to public opinions, which are provided through public hearings, work visits, seminars, workshops, discussions, and public consultations. However, the options in the norm can result in multiple interpretations and lack legal certainty because the legislature can use one of the existing options when drafting laws and regulations. Instead, the Petitioner asserted that the principles that ensure public opinions are heard, considered, and responded to as efficiently as possible in an efficient and sustainable manner to achieve the goal of public participation are necessary.

“My intellectual right is harmed especially in [expressing opinions in] journals or public advocacy and I have difficulties participating in lawmaking where my intellectual right is harmed due to being unable to voice inputs such us those relating to the salary index of retired [civil servants], 13th salary, and THR [(Idul Fitri holiday bonus)]. If [I] could voice inputs regarding these at the beginning of the drafting, [I] would,” the Petitioner said.

Therefore, in the petitum, he requests that the Court declare Article 96 paragraphs (6), (8), and (9) of the Lawmaking Law conditionally unconstitutional.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioner that a petition should consists of the petitioner’s profile, the Court’s authority, the petitioner’s potential or actual constitutional impairment, the posita, and the petitum. “It is rather difficult, but [you may] consult with the Registrar’s Office or observe petitions filed to the Court. Identify whether the enforcement of the norm is disadvantageous factually or only potentially,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioner on the articles being petitioned.

Lastly, before Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams adjourned the session, he announced that the Petitioner had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office no later than Wednesday, September 6 at 09:00 WIB. The Registrar’s Office would then set a schedule for the next hearing.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. Halim
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.


Thursday, August 24, 2023 | 15:31 WIB 115