Legal counsel Adhytpratama Febriansyah Asshiddiqie conveying the withdrawal of a judicial review of the Sharia Banking Law, Wednesday (10/18/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the revision hearing  of the judicial review of Article 19 paragraph (2) letter c of Law No. 21 of 2008 on Sharia Banking on Wednesday, October 18, 2023. The petition for case No. 118/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Lisa Corintina, a customer of the Wisma Metropolitan branch sharia unit of PT Bank CIMB Niaga Tbk.

At this hearing, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair) said that the Court had received a letter requesting the withdrawal of the petition dated October 18 signed by the Petitioner’s legal counsel. “We [would like you to] confirm, is this letter accurate?” he asked.

In response to the question, legal counsel Adhytpratama Febriansyah Asshiddiqie confirmed the withdrawal request letter.

Also read: Conformity of Sharia Banking with Sharia Principle Questioned

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, October 5, the Petitioner’s legal counsel stated that the a quo article, which reads “A Sharia (Islamic) Commercial Bank business shall include: distributing the revenue-sharing financing based on mudharabah, musyarakah, or other contracts that are not against the Sharia Principle” had caused constitutional harm to her because it does not explain the musyarakah contract, which is in line with sharia principles, in detail.

As a customer of Islamic financial services, the Petitioner feels she has not received financial services that are truly in line with Islamic sharia principles. “(The Petitioner) is a debtor and/or customer of the Wisma Metropolitan branch sharia unit of PT Bank CIMB Niaga Tbk. She feels that the financial services she has been using are not in line with sharia principles, because there are practices that are not in line with sharia principles in the application of musyarakah contracts by sharia financial service institutions for the public in general and especially the Petitioner as a user of sharia financial services. Therefore, she argues that the a quo article is against Article 29 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
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.

---