Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih opening the Petitioner of the material judicial review of Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, Wednesday (9/27/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 31 paragraph (4) of 1945 Constitution on Wednesday, September 27, 2023 in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms. The petition No. 111/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Meidiantoni, a state civil apparatus (ASN) associate tax counselor of the Directorate-General of Taxation (DJP) of the Ministry of Finance.

The Petitioner said he was disadvantaged by the obstacle to move Indonesia forward with a better use of the budget and because of the fixed use of annual education spending.

He also explained that there had been losses as a result of a pattern of imbalanced between state financial capacity and spending based on urgency.

“There is no excess spending in education, for example, public elementary, junior high, and senior/vocational high schools have air conditioning that they might not have at home. Residential air conditioning (AC) will substantially have higher electricity expenditures. This is one of the reasons why many households choose not to use air conditioning. So, in addition to commodities such as air conditioners, the costs charged to state spending as a result of air conditioners are electricity costs in all public schools and universities in Indonesia,” he stressed before Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair) and Suhartoyo and Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

In addition, the Petitioner claimed that the aforementioned state spending was impossible since the 1945 Constitution has set the education budget percentage. In his petitum, he requested an interlocutory decision for the judicial review of Article 31 paragraph (4) of 1945 Constitution.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Justice Suhartoyo asked the Petitioner to read the Constitutional Court Regulation  (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 and follow the petition format as stipulated in the PMK. “Follow the PMK No. 2 of 2021, especially Article 10. Read the requirements to file the petition, what the petition contains, as they are outlined in the PMK,” he said.

Next, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra said that the petition was vague because the Petitioner challenged the 1945 Constitution against the 1945 Constitution, when it should have been a law against the 1945 Constitution.

“You could instead challenge the APBN Law against Article 31 of the 1945 Constitution. … Request which article to be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding,” he said.

Meanwhile, Justice Enny Nurbaningsih appreciated the Petitioner’s intention and effort to learn the Constitution. However, she also asked him to learn the Constitutional Court Law to understand the Court’s authority.

“So, the Petitioner should first learn which law is problematic, and learn and understand it. Please study the 1945 Constitution and the Constitutional Court Law. If necessary, please discuss with those who understand the law,” she asked.

Before adjourning the session, Justice Enny announced that the Petitioner would have 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it no later than Tuesday, October 10, 2023. And if the Petitioner wants to withdraw the petition, the Panel asked that he send a letter to request the withdrawal.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Nyi Mas Laras Nur Inten Kemalasari/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.

---