Head of the Legal Affairs and Registrar Administration Bureau Fajar Laksono opening an FGD on the monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the Court’s decisions, Thursday (12/7/2023). Photo by MKRI/Hamdi.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a focus group discussion (FGD) on monitoring and evaluating the implementation of Constitutional Court decisions on Thursday, December 7, 2023 on the 10th floor of the Court’s main building. Head of the Legal Affairs and Registrar Administration Bureau Fajar Laksono said through this FGD the Court wished to see an overview of the implementation of its decisions.

“At the very least, we get a true picture of what the decisions of the justices in a particular case is like, what it looks like after the decision is struck, (the implementation) after the case is decided,” Fajar said in his speech.

He emphasized that monitoring and evaluating decisions is not the Court’s constitutional authority. However, the Court needs to obtain information from various parties regarding the implementation of its decisions.

Fajar hoped the speakers would provide various information related to the actual implementation of the Court’s decisions, which he believes have extraordinary dynamics.

The Court had held two FGDs on the same theme. The FGDs were related to decisions on religion in resident identity cards (KTP), children out of wedlock, marriage between employees of the same office, the House’s involvement in international agreements, medical marijuana, and fiduciary duty.

Dissemination of Decisions

In the first session, advocate and frequent petitioner Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak, vice chairman of the national executive board of PERADI (Indonesian Advocates Association) Saor Siagian, secretary-general of PERADI SAI (Indonesian Advocates Association Suara Advokat Indonesia) Patra M. Zen, and Surdiyanto from the Directorate-General of Legislation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights talked about Decision No. 91/PUU-XX/2022.

The decision is related to the tenure of the leadership of advocate organizations listed in Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates. In the decision, the Court stated that the leaders of advocate organizations hold a five-year tenure and can only be re-elected once in the same position, either consecutively or non-consecutively, and cannot be concurrently appointed as leaders of political parties, both at the central and regional levels.

Simanjuntak argued that the addressee (the person affected by the legal product) has no sense of belonging to the decision because of Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law. In addition, because the Court’s decisions are not disseminated, most of the public do not know them.

“The Court indeed does not have the authority to disseminate and I think this can be studied because to add this authority amending law is unnecessary, as dissemination is a normal thing, and it can be done through Constitutional Court regulations,” he said.

Self-Executing

On the other hand, Surdiyanto stated that Decision No. 91/PUU-XX/2022 does not require any follow-up actions because it can be directly implemented. It is also self-executing, meaning it does not disrupt the existing normative system, and thus does not require further regulation.

“The decision does not create a legal vacuum so self-executing decisions do not need to be followed up,” he said.

Also read: Bappenas Reveals Implementation of Court Decisions

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Nur R.
Translator  : Najwa Afifah Lukman/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.

---