Petitioner Details Loss Due to Provisions on Public Participation in Lawmaking Law

Petitioner Almizan Ulfa elaborating the revisions to the petition on the Lawmaking Law, Wednesday (9/6/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Almizan Ulfa, a retired civil servant senior researcher of the Ministry of Finance, attended the second material judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking on Wednesday, September 6, 2023. At the hearing for case No. 82/PUU-XXI/2023, presided over by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair), Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, he detailed the revisions to the petition.

The Petitioner conveyed revisions to the petition’s format, petitum, and argument on constitutional loss. He also said he had attached proof of his legal standing as a lecturer as well as content creator at several media companies.

“The constitutional loss due to the enforcement of this norm is that [I] lost the opportunity to receive appreciation by lawmakers since [I] failed to give expertise or speak at the public consultation. This is because the norm in the a quo articles has legalized lawmakers not to carry out public consultation instead of following the standard norm requiring meaningful public participation. In addition, [I] have failed to improve his and the nation’s intellect by not participating in the public consultation while its minutes and proceedings are not publicized,” the Petitioner explained.

Also read: Provisions on Public Participation in Lawmaking Questioned

At preliminary hearing, the Petitioner—who appeared before the Court 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 paragraph (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. Therefore, in the petitum, he requests that the Court declare Article 96 paragraphs (6), (8), and (9) of the Lawmaking Law conditionally unconstitutional.

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.

Wednesday, September 06, 2023 | 14:52 WIB 82