Due to Delayed Testimony, Court Postpones Hearing on Lawmaking Law
Image

The material judicial review hearing of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking postponed, Tuesday (9/26/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of the elucidation of Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No.12 of 2011 on Lawmaking (P3 Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) on Tuesday, September 26, 2023 on site in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 66/PUU-XXI/2023 was presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other eight constitutional justices.

This sixth hearing was supposed to hear the testimony of the Petitioner’s expert. However, the Registrar’s Office informed the Court that the expert’s written statement had only been filed on Monday, September 25, thus could not be heard at today’s hearing.

"We received testimony from the Petitioner’s expert yesterday at 23:00 WIB. Therefore, the Petitioner’s legal counsel should be aware that the expert testimony did not meet the requirements for submitting expert testimony, which is at least two days before the hearing. Therefore, today’s hearing is not continued and we will schedule the next hearing to hear this expert testimony,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

“Therefore, this hearing is postponed until Monday, October 16, 2023, at 11:00 WIB, with the agenda of hearing two expert testimonies for the Petitioner,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Also read:

Constitutionality of MPR’s Authority Questioned 

Yusril Ihza Mahendra Revises Petition on Restriction over MPR’s Authority

MPR Says Some Authority Not Regulated Yet

Historian, Witnesses Attend Hearing on MPR’s Authority

MPR Decrees Once Was to Be Included in Legislation

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner—represented by chairman Yusril Ihza Mahendra and secretary-general Afriansyah Noor—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 (ordering) 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  : Tahlitha Laela/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.


Tuesday, September 26, 2023 | 14:07 WIB 121