Chief Justice Suhartoyo opening the continued hearing on material judicial review of Law Number 23 of 2011 on Zakat Management, Monday (25/11) in the Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI—The material judicial review hearing of Law Number 23 of 2011 on Zakat Management (Zakat Management Law) to hear the petitioners’ expert on Monday, November 25, 2024, was postponed due to late submission of the document. The expert testimony document was only received by the Court on Friday, November 22, 2024. Thus, it did not meet the requirement of document submission which shall be received in two working days at the latest before the next hearing schedule.

“Based on the report from the Registrar's Office, the statement or CV of the person concerned or the expert was only submitted on Friday, so it did not fulfill the provisions of Article 61 paragraph 3, the submission of information must be submitted two working days before the hearing,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo said in the Plenary Courtroom Case Number 97/PUU-XXII/2024.

Therefore, the hearing was postponed and will resume on Tuesday, December 10, 2024 at 13.30 WIB. The hearing was scheduled to hear the testimony of experts and witnesses from the Petitioners.

Meanwhile, the Petitioner's legal counsel said that his party added experts who would be presented at the hearing at the Constitutional Court. In addition, the House of Representatives, the President/Government, and the Related Parties, namely the National Amil Zakat Agency (BAZNAS), the Muhammadiyah Amil Zakat Infaq and Shadaqah Institution (LAZISMU), and the Nahdlatul Ulama Amil Zakat Infaq and Shadaqah Institution (LAZISNU) have submitted their testimonies at the hearing.

Also read:

Dompet Dhuafa, Jakarta Zakat Forum Challenge Zakat Management Law

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

Zakat Management Review Hearing Postponed

Govt: BAZNAS and LAZ Complement the Zakat Management System

LAZISNU Argues the Enactment of Zakat Management Law Improves Public Trust

The Petitioners of this case consist of Yayasan Dompet Dhuafa Republika, Perkumpulan Forum Zakat Jakarta, and individual Arif Rahmadi Haryono. They appointed Bambang Widjojanto and Denny Indrayana to the legal team. The Petitioners' activities, both as institutions and private individuals, 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

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.

---