Legal counsel Sabar Maruli Simamora (right) at the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, Tuesday (1/16/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) decided to reject the entire material judicial review petition of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court by Sugeng Nugroho, Teguh Prihandoko, and Azeem Marhendra Amedi.

The Petitioners of case No. 151/PUU-XXI/2023 argued that, based on the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (MKMK) Decision No. 2/MKMK/L/11/2023, Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman had made a strategic move to benefit one of his relatives through Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. However, the Court asserted that the Petitioners’ argument was legally groundless. It stated that the judicial power is independent in enforcing law and justice.

“The Court is of the opinion that Article 10 paragraph (1) and Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 of 2003 obviously have not led to any issues relating to judicial power. [The judicial power] is an independent power in enforcing law and justice and guaranteeing the protection of fair legal certainty and equality before the law,” said Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh delivering the Court’s legal opinions at the ruling hearing on Tuesday, January 16, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

In its verdict, the Court rejected the Petitioners’ entire petition. “[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict.

Also read:

Constitutional Court Law Challenged after Decision on Presidential Tickets’ Age Limit

Justices Must Internalize Their Role as Guardians of Constitution

The Petitioners of case No. 151/PUU-XXI/2023 were fisherman Sugeng Nugroho, entrepreneur Teguh Prihandoko, and graduate law student Azeem Marhendra. They gave power of attorney to advocates of Tim Advokasi Pejuang Penegak Konstitusi (Advocacy Team for the Constitution or Petisi). They challenged Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court in the aftermath of the Court’s Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023—in which it interpreted Article 169 letter q of the Election Law on the minimum age for presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

“The petition comes from Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 that became a much-discussed topic so, as citizens, the Petitioners made a decision and took action by filing the petition,” said legal counsel Fedrik Jacob Pinakunary at the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, December 6, 2023.

The Petitioners believed Article 10 paragraph (1) and Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law were contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. They believed they had an interest to monitor the hearing process and deserve legal fair decisions that are free from problems that threaten the independence, impartiality, and integrity of constitutional justices.

The Article 10 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law reads, “The Constitutional Court holds jurisdiction of first and final instance, whose decisions shall be final: a. To review a law against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; b. To resolve disputes of jurisdiction between state institutions whose competencies are defined by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia; c. To pass decisions on the dissolution of political parties; and d. To resolve disputes involving the results of the general elections.”

Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law reads, “The Constitutional Court shall review, adjudicate, and render a decision in a plenary hearing of the Constitutional Court attended by 9 (nine) constitutional justices, except under special circumstances with 7 (seven) constitutional justices, chaired by the chief justice of the Constitutional Court, may be in attendance.”

The Petitioners argued that it was proven that the two provisions are ambiguous, multi-interpretive, and had made the Constitutional Court not impartial, neutral, clearly taking sides when handing down Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. This was related to the participation of Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman, who served as chief justice at the time, in examining, adjudicating, and deciding cases on the minimum age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The Petitioners alleged he had a conflict of interest because he was the uncle of President Joko Widodo’s eldest son, Gibran Rakabuming Raka. After the decision, Gibran started his bid for vice president alongside presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto.

The Petitioners asserted that if it can be proven that the decision was a result of ethics violations, there had been a formal flaw in the decision-making process. If left legally binding, generally applicable (erga omnes), and executed, the Constitutional Court would be perpetuating practices that are not in line with the Constitution.

In their petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare the Article 10 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “as long as there is no violations of ethics and/or decency determined or decided by the Ethics Council of the Constitutional Court or any institution authorized by laws and regulations.”

In addition, they requested the Court to declare the Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “and the constitutional justices who hear and decide in the plenary hearing as intended absolutely do not have any conflict of interest, including potential conflicts of interest with the case being adjudicated, heard, and decided.”

They also requested the Court to declare Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 invalid, not legally binding, and non-executable.  

Author       : Fauzan F.
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad 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.

---