Constitutional Court holding a decision pronouncement hearing of judicial review on Law No. 21 of 2023 on National Capital City (IKN Law), Thursday (12/9/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Jakarta, MKRI—The Constitutional Court held a decision pronouncement hearing on Thursday, September 12, 2024, in case No. 79/PUU-XXII/2024 on judicial review of law No. 21 of 2024 on the Amendment to Law No. 3 of 2022 on National Capital City (IKN Law). The case was filed by teacher Herifuddin Daulay.
“Verdict, to adjudicate, to declare the petitioner’s petition is inadmissible,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo pronounced the ruling.
On the legal consideration read out by Justice M. Guntur Hamzah stated that after the Court examined the reasons for the petition (posita), regardless of whether there was a constitutional issue or not, according to the Court, basically in accordance with the systematics, the revised petition can be said to be in accordance with the format of judicial review as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 2 of 2021.
However, even though the petition has been prepared and contains the correct systematics, the assessment of the fulfillment of the formal requirements of a petition is not only up to the fulfillment of the systematics an sich. In this case, the Court will also assess the fulfillment and accuracy of the content/substance of each systematics. As in the initial petition, the Petitioner wanted to examine Article 12 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), paragraph (3), paragraph (4), and paragraph (5); Article 15 paragraph (7); Article 23 paragraph (1), Article 24 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 24 paragraph (7) of Law No. 21 of 2003 against Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. However, in the revision of the Petition, the Petitioner changed the articles tested to Article I Number 5 Article 15 paragraph (7), Article I Number 9 Article 24 paragraph (1) letter a, Article I Number 9 Article 24 paragraph (2) letter b, Article I Number 9 Article 24 paragraph (7), Article I Number 10 Article 24A paragraph (5), Article I Number 10 Article 24A paragraph (6), Article I Number 17 Article 42 paragraph (6) of Law No. 21 of 2003 against Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 23 paragraph (1) and Article 28A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia without providing and developing clear arguments as to why the Petitioner changed the articles under review.
Then, Justice Guntur continued, the Petitioner also did not elaborate clear and adequate (comprehensive) and in-depth legal arguments regarding the conflict between the norms of the Articles petitioned for constitutionality review, namely Article I Number 5 of Article 15 paragraph (7), Article I Number 9 of Article 24 paragraph (1) letter a, Article I Number 9 of Article 24 paragraph (2) letter b. Article I Number 9 of Article 24 paragraph (7), Article I Number 10 of Article 24A paragraph (5), Article I Number 10 of Article 24A paragraph (6), Article I Number 17 of Article 42 paragraph (6) of Law No. 21 of 2003, Article I Number 9 Article 24 paragraph (7), Article I Number 10 Article 24A paragraph (5), Article I Number 10 Article 24A paragraph (6), Article I Number 17 Article 42 paragraph (6) of Law No. 21 of 2003 which is a general provision of the law a quo against the articles that are the basis of review of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, especially Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 23 paragraph (1), and Article 28A. Therefore, it is difficult for the Court to clearly know and understand the conflict between the norms in the articles being tested against the 1945 Constitution. This is because, in their petition, the Petitioner describes more about the funding for the development of the National Capital City (IKN), which comes from the State Budget, causing an increase in rice prices, and the development of IKN is not intended for the greatest prosperity of the people without being accompanied by further description of the contradiction.
The Court further said that the Petitioner also linked the petition with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 40/PUU-XX/2022, which was pronounced in a plenary session open to the public on May 31, 2022, according to the Petitioner, the Court's decision was subjective and completely ignored the facts and values contained in the Petitioner's petition, and the Petitioner states that the norm a quo does not meet the intent of Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and must be declared contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, without providing further explanation/argumentation regarding the contradiction of the norm a quo which does not meet the constitutionality requirements as stipulated in Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and must be declared contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. Thus, the description of the petition causes the Petitioner's petition to be unfocused and difficult to be understood by the Court and results in the Petitioner's petition becoming unclear or vague (obscuur).
In addition, according to the Court, the petition is unclear or vague (obscuur) because it does not fulfill the formal requirements of the petition as referred to in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 2 of 2021. Because the petition and petitum are not in accordance with Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 2 of 2021, the Court is of the opinion that the petition is unclear or vague (obscuur). Thus, the legal position and the subject matter of the petition are not considered further.
“Other matters are not considered further because they are considered irrelevant,” said Justice Guntur.
Also read:
Teacher Challenges Constitutionality of State Budget Allocation for the New Indonesian Capital City
Herifuddin Daulay Revises Petition for Judicial Review of the IKN Law
Herifuddin Daulay had previously filed an objection regarding the transfer of IKN, which had been decided by the Constitutional Court. In Decision Number 40/PUU-XX/2022, the Constitutional Court stated, “Declaring the petition of the Petitioner inadmissible”.
In this petition, the Petitioner tested Article 12, Article 15 paragraph (7), Article 23 paragraph (1), Article 24 paragraph (1) letter a, and Article 24 paragraph (7) of the IKN Law. According to him, although the same theme is about the transfer of IKN, this petition must be considered new and has never been submitted, considering that the minutes of the Law submitted for review are not Law No. 3 of 2022 but Law No. 21 of 2023. Moreover, the articles being tested are new material.
“The subject matter of the testing of Law No. 3 of 2022 case number also by the Petitioner a quo is that the use of the state budget will have a significant impact on the process of social life, nation, and state,” Herifuddin explained in the preliminary hearing.
He considered that the Constitutional Court should postpone the implementation of the Article of Law being tested until the final decision on this case.
Author: Utami Argawati.
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Fauzan F.
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/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, September 12, 2024 | 13:39 WIB 43