Chief Justice Suhartoyo (center) at the hearing to pronounce Decree No. 94/PUU-XXII/2024 on the Law on the National Flag, Language, Emblem, and Anthem, Tuesday (8/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2009 on the National Flag, Language, Emblem, and Anthem (BBLNLK Law) on Tuesday, August 20, 2024. The Court dismissed the Petitioner since she was absent from the preliminary hearing.

The petition No. 94/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Ratri Aisa Wulandari. She challenged Article 25 paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 of 2009, which reads, “The Indonesian language, which is declared as the official language of the state in Article 36 of the 1945 Constitution of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, originates from the language pledged in the Youth Pledge on October 28, 1928 as the language of unity that is developed in line with the dynamics of the nation’s civilization.”

In its legal opinion, delivered by Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside seven other constitutional justices, the Court stated that it had scheduled a preliminary hearing on August 6 to hear the petition. The Petitioner had been summonsed legitimately and properly through the chief registrar letter No. 258.94/PUU/PAN.MK/PS/07/2024 dated July 31. Through one of its bailiffs, the Court had also contacted the Petitioner through WhatsApp texts and calls. However, until the preliminary hearing on August 6, she had not responded. The panel had opened the preliminary hearing and asked the Petitioner to enter the courtroom, but the Petitioner was absent.

Based on Article 41 paragraph (4) of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the procedural law for judicial review reads, “In the event that the Petitioners and/or their legal counsels are absent at the preliminary hearing without any legitimate reason despite an official and proper summons, the Court will declare the petition dismissed.”

“Based on the provisions as referred to in letters c and d above, the justice deliberation meeting on August 8, 2024 has concluded that the Petitioner’s absence at the first hearing showed that the Petitioner was not serious in filing the petition. A summons had been sent officially and properly by the Court, so any citizen must comply unless they have a legitimate reason not to. Therefore, the Petitioner’s petition must be declared inadmissible,” the chief justice stressed.

Also read: Petitioner Absent from Hearing on Law on State Language

On Tuesday, August 6, Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih presided over the preliminary hearing for case No. No. 94/PUU-XXII/2024, filed by Ratri Aisa Wulandari.

At that hearing, Justice Ridwan Mansyur said that the Court had summonsed the Petitioner twice. As she failed to appear before the Court without any legitimate reason, following the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021, the petition might be dismissed. However, the panel would bring it to the justice deliberation meeting for further consideration. 

Subject Matter

In the petition, the Petitioner argued that the article did not provide legal certainty, gave the legislatures a legal loophole, and led to conflict of interest. In principle, she believed the provision had kept the public from participating in democracy.

She stated that the language in question cannot be used for both spoken and written communication, which is in violation of Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. She also asserted that if the petition were not granted, Indonesia would forever have anomalous laws without any usage procedure.

In the petitum, the Petitioner asked the Court to declare Article 25 paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 of 2009 conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The state’s spoken language shall be the spoken Indonesian language and the state’s written language shall be the written Indonesian while the state’s script is the Indonesian script,” and not, “In order to fulfill the rights as referred to in the case a quo, the legislatures shall be obliged to encourage meaningful public participation in every stage of the formation of laws and regulations,” and not, “The legislatures shall explain and publish to the public the results of the discussion of public inputs as referred to in the a quo case no later than or at most one week from the time the inputs are received,” and not, “Further provisions regarding public participation as referred to in the a quo case shall be regulated in a law that must be promulgated at the latest or no later than twelve workdays after the Constitutional Court’s decision is handed down.” 

Author            : Utami Argawati
Editor             : Nur R.
PR                 : Tiara Agustina
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.

---