Chief Justice Suhartoyo leading the judicial review hearing of Zakat Management Law at the Plenary Courtroom, Monday (30/9). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI—The examination of Law Number 23 of 2011 on Zakat Management against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI), with the agenda of hearing the testimony of the House of Representatives and the President on Monday, September 30, 2024, could not proceed because the House of Representatives was absent, and the president/government was not ready to submit its testimony. The hearing was postponed.

“The hearing will reconvene on Thursday, October 17, 2024, at 13.30, the agenda is still to hear the testimony of the House of Representatives and the president; therefore, the parties should be present without us calling because this is an official summons from the Court,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo accompanied by seven other constitutional justices in the Plenary Courtroom.

He continued that the Related Parties can also prepare their testimony. When the president and the House of Representatives have given their testimonies, the Related Parties can immediately take turns delivering their testimonies.

Also read:

Dompet Dhuafa, Jakarta Zakat Forum Challenge Zakat Management Law

Dompet Dhuafa and Forum Zakat Revise Petition on Zakat Management Law Review

The Petitioners of Case Number 97/PUU-XXII/2024 consist of Yayasan Dompet Dhuafa Republika, Perkumpulan Forum Zakat Jakarta, and individual Arif Rahmadi Haryono. They appointed Bambang Widjojanto and Denny Indrayana to be part of the legal team. The Petitioners, both as institutions and private individuals, in their activities are closely related to the practice of zakat management.

Petitioners who are muzaki (zakat operators) found themselves obstructed and harmed in their activities due to regulations regarding zakat management under articles and paragraphs contained in Law No. 23 of 2011 that are deemed harmful. The community organizations that have been established have and are still conduction education, campaigns, and dissemination about Zakat, Infak Sedekah (ZIS) gradually until now.

The Amil Zakat Institution (LAZ), which has existed for a long time, hoped that Baznas and LAZ would have equal roles and duties. They cited the regulation regarding state and private banks, which are equal, as well as the role of the Bank of Indonesia, which is responsible for monetary policy, regulating and supervising the financial system, and maintaining the stability of the rupiah.

The Petitioners deemed that the existence of Article 5 paragraph (1) implicitly and explicitly shows that the main purpose of the establishment of Baznas is to take over the collection of zakat that has been done by the community to be managed by the state and negate the history of the community management of zakat. In fact, when Baznas was newly established, to provide learning and experience to Baznas, there was cooperation in the management of zakat between Baznas and Dompet Dhuafa Republika Foundation, known as Baznas Dompet Dhuafa. The cooperation was done because Baznas has no experience in managing zakat.

According to the Petitioners, the regulations deny the history. For example, they excluded the zakat management institutions that existed before Baznas was established in the drafting of regulations regarding zakat management. The Law also does not facilitate the zakat management community.

On the petitum, the Petitioners plead the Court to declare Article 38 and Article 43 paragraph (4) contradict the 1945 Constitution and do not have legally binding power. Meanwhile, the Petitioners also ask the Court to re-interpret Article 5 paragraph (1), Article 6 paragraph (1), Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 16 paragraph (1), Article 17, Article 18 paragraph (2), Article 19, Article 20, Article 41, and Article 43 paragraph (3) as per their requests. (*)

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: 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.

---