Chief Justice Anwar Usman delivering the verdict on the judicial review of the Lawmaking Law, Thursday (9/14/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the material judicial review petition of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking inadmissible. The Decision No. 82/PUU-XXI/2023 was delivered at a ruling hearing on Thursday, September 14, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The case was filed by Almizan Ulfa, a retired civil servant senior researcher of the Ministry of Finance. Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Enny Nurbaningsih delivered the Court’s legal opinion.

Public participation in lawmaking through giving inputs is regulated in the Lawmaking Law. Meanwhile, Law No. 13 of 2022 expanded this into all stages of lawmaking: planning, drafting, discussion, ratification or stipulation, and promulgation. Justice Enny further stated that the planning, discussion, and drafting stages are the most important ones for obtaining public inputs. This is regulated by Article 96 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking.

The limitation is that the people who can provide inputs are individuals or groups that are directly impacted or have vested interest in the material of the bill of law, as regulated by Article 96 paragraph (3) of the Lawmaking Law. In addition, Justice Enny added, ease of access to academic texts or their drafts is also regulated in Article 96 paragraph (4) of the Lawmaking Law.

“Therefore, the regulation on public participation in the Lawmaking Law is sufficient since the legislatures cannot determine technical matters in a law rigidly. As such, Article 96 paragraph (3) of the Lawmaking Law has mandated the proposing institutions of the bill to regulate a more technical procedure of public participation in the DPR (House of Representatives) regulation, DPD (Regional Representatives Council) regulation, and presidential regulation,” she explained.

Also read:

Provisions on Public Participation in Lawmaking Questioned

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

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 were 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 questioned 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 requested 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.

---