Petitioners conveying the subject matter of the judicial review of the Protocol Law alongside their legal counsels, Monday (7/22/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 16 letter a of Law No. 9 of 2010 on Protocols against the 1945 Constitution on Monday, July 22, 2024, in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms. Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh chaired the hearing.

Pranoto, an observer of Indonesian history, and Dwi Agung, a teacher, filed petition No. 66/PUU-XXII/2024. The Petitioners argued that inaccurate historical facts incorporated into the law have led to continued errors in Indonesia’s education system, so accurate knowledge has not been shared, and the goal of educating the nation’s life has not been achieved.

They felt disadvantaged due to discrepancies between the law's phrases and the existing facts. This hindered them from acquiring, providing, and disseminating knowledge and education and from obtaining benefits from the government-designed national education system.

“The Protocol Law states that August 17, 1945, is the Independence Day of the Indonesian State. However, according to history and the Petitioners, August 17, 1945, is the Independence Day or the birthday of the Indonesian Nation, whereas if one wants to refer to the Independence Day of the Indonesian State, it should be August 18, 1945. Therefore, referring to every flag ceremony as August 17, Indonesia’s Independence Day, is very detrimental to the Petitioners,” explained Singgih Tomi Gumilang, the Petitioners’ legal counsel, online.

In addition, the Petitioners also emphasized that this discrepancy impacts the achievement of the goal to educate the nation in accordance with Article 28C paragraph (1) and Article 31 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. This error is also reflected in the Government’s Circular Letter regarding the Commemoration of the Anniversary of the Republic of Indonesia on August 17. By changing the phrase ‘Independence of the Republic of Indonesia’ to ‘Independence of the Indonesian Nation’ in Article 16 Letter a, Article 18, and Article 20 of the Protocol Law, it is hoped that the constitutional rights and authority of the Petitioners can be better fulfilled, so that the national education system can function properly, and the Government can be more precise in issuing Circular Letters related to the commemoration of national holidays.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare acceptance and grant the petition in its entirety; to declare that Article 16 Letter a, Article 18, and Article 20 of the Protocol Law, as it pertains to the phrase “Independence of the Republic of Indonesia” is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force.

Justices’ Advice 

Responding to the Petitioners, Justice Ridwan Mansyur suggested that they elaborate specifically on the urgency of the phrase to be interpreted and defined according to the arguments of the Petitioners and their legal counsel. “Elaboration on the inclusion of the phrase or nomenclature of the independence of the Republic of Indonesia in the Protocol Law is not in accordance with history as the Petitioners, affecting the teaching process and understanding of students taught by the petitioners,” he said.

Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh also said the same thing. He advised the Petitioners to look at examples of existing petitions to clarify their legal standing.

At the end of the session, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra said the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition and must submit it to the Registrar's Office by Monday, August 5, at 09:00 WIB. 

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : N. Rosi
PR            : Fauzan F.
Translator  : Intana Selvira Fauzi/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---