Petitioner Asks Court Decisions That Violate Code of Ethics Be Reviewed
Image

The preliminary hearing of a judicial review of the Judiciary Law, Thursday (2/1/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — A student named Adoni Y. Tanesab has filed a judicial review petition of Article 29 paragraph (1) letter a of Law No. 48 of 2009 on the Judicial Power. He asked the Constitutional Court (MK) to interpret the word “laws” in the article to include Constitutional Court decisions whose examination and decision-making process has been declared in violation of the principles of independence and impartiality in the constitutional justices’ code of ethics and conduct (Sapta Karsa Hutama) based on the decisions of the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi or MKMK).

Conveying the Petitioner’s petitum in case No. 7/PUU-XXII/2024 at the preliminary hearing on Thursday, February 1, 2024, legal counsel Marthen Boiliu asked the Court to “declare Article 29 paragraph (1) letter a of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 48 of 2009 on the Judicial Power and its elucidation; the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2009 No. 157; and Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 5076 that reads, “The Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate at the first and last level whose decisions are final for: a. the review of laws against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia” in violation of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not legally binding if the word ‘laws’ not be interpreted as ‘including Constitutional Court decisions whose examination and decision-making process has been declared in violation of the principles of independence and impartiality in the constitutional justices’ code of ethics and conduct (Sapta Karsa Hutama) based on the decisions of the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi or MKMK).’”

The petition was submitted 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 Petitioner argued that due to said decision, he cannot file a judicial review petition requesting that the decision be annulled, since the Constitutional Court does not have such authority.

“It led to the Petitioner not having legal certainty and legal justice in addition to being harmed by the article petitioned for review in the a quo petition. Therefore, there is causality between articles in the Law petitioned for review in the a quo petition and the loss of constitutional rights and/or authority,” the Petitioner alleged in the petition.

In addition, he believes that his right to elect presidential tickets who meet requirements has been harmed by said Constitutional Court decision, which has become a new source of legal norms. On top of that, the examination process and the deliberation of the decision have been proven to violate the constitutional justices’ code of ethics and conduct based on the Ethics Council’s decisions.

Justices’ Advice

As panel chair, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra stated that the petitioned norm is a derivative of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution on the Constitutional Court’s authority. If the Court granted the petition, it would be violating the Constitution.

“The norm of the Constitution is relegated to [this] law. You request that it be added “as long as…” et cetera. Please reconsider whether to continue the petition or not,” he said alongside Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Ridwan Mansyur.

Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution reads, “The Constitutional Court shall have the authority to make final decisions in cases of first and last instance to review laws against the Constitution….”

Justice Saldi added that the Court reviews general norms or norms in laws against the Constitution. If the Petitioner interpreted these norms on the basis of a concrete case, the Court would have difficulty reviewing the law.

In addition, he added, the Petitioner must elaborate his legal standing and loss of constitutional rights. Otherwise, the petition would be declared obscure and inadmissible.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Saldi announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition or reconsider withdrawing it and filing a new one. The revised petition must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office by Thursday, February 15, 2024 at 09:00 WIB. 

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
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.


Thursday, February 01, 2024 | 15:15 WIB 53