Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih delivering a keynote speech at, Friday (8/30/2024). Photo by MKRI/HPW-Yuwandi.

---

SAMARINDA (MKRI) — Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani officially closed the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) on Monitoring and Evaluating the Implementation of Constitutional Court Decisions in 2024, held from Thursday to Saturday (August 29–31, 2024) in Samarinda, East Kalimantan. Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih also delivered the keynote speech regarding the final and binding nature of Constitutional Court (MK) rulings.

Enny emphasized that MK decisions are final and binding, as mandated by Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. MK rulings gain permanent legal force once pronounced, and no further legal recourse can be sought.

The Court also recognizes the principle of *ne bis in idem*, which prohibits re-adjudicating norms that have already been reviewed. However, applicants may present new reasons different from previous reviews that could persuade the Constitutional Court judges to change their stance, potentially leading to a different interpretation of constitutionality.

She also reminded that not only the ruling, but the legal considerations of the Court are also final and binding. Therefore, she urged all citizens to understand MK decisions comprehensively as an integrated whole.

“Legal considerations are binding, so understanding MK decisions must be done comprehensively,” said Enny.

Enny further explained that the MK had previously ruled on cases where the applicants failed to clearly articulate their legal standing, leading to the dismissal of the case. However, she said, the Court felt the need to clarify the interpretation of certain norms in the laws under review to ensure legal certainty through its legal considerations.

Thus, she hopes applicants will be able to build strong arguments regarding their legal standing so that their petitions can be considered further by the Court. If the qualification as an applicant is not clearly explained, it will be difficult for the applicant to meet the requirements for proving constitutional harm.

On the other hand, Enny appreciated the growing trend of younger generations, especially university students, submitting petitions for judicial review. This indicates an increasing awareness of legal rights, particularly constitutional rights.

Additionally, although the Court’s work ends with the issuance of the ruling, MK sees the need to conduct monitoring and evaluation (monev) at the implementation level. To this end, MK organized the FGD on monitoring and evaluating the implementation of decisions in collaboration with the Center for Constitutional Studies of the Law Faculty of Mulawarman University (Unmul).

Arsul expressed hope that both MK and Mulawarman University would benefit from this event. The results of the FGD are expected to support the respective tasks of each institution in the future.

“With this monev activity, both the Constitutional Court and participants, especially FH Unmul, will benefit from a mutual symbiosis that will certainly make our respective tasks better in the future,” said Arsul.

Also read: MK-Unmul Gelar Monitoring dan Evaluasi Implementasi Putusan Pengujian Undang-Undang

For information, the five MK rulings being monitored are Decision No. 45/PUU-IX/2011 on the status of forest areas designated and/or established by the government; Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012 on the customary land rights of indigenous law communities and customary forests as state forests; Decision No. 95/PUU-XII/2014 on the rights of indigenous law communities, provisions on the arrangement, regulation, and management of forests by the state or government; Decision No. 24/PUU-XXII/2024 on the prohibition of filing a judicial review by State Administrative Bodies/Officials (TUN) in TUN disputes after an MK ruling; Decision No. 37/PUU-XIX/2021 on the granting of Mining Business Permits (IUP) by the central and local governments and its correlation to environmental damage and the criminalization of communities engaged in advocacy efforts.

Participants of the FGD included applicants of each case, legislators, regulators, policymakers, and other parties directly affected by the relevant MK decisions.

Writer: Mimi Kartika 

Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P. 

Translator: Agusweka Poltak Siregar (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.

---