The online preliminary judicial review hearing of Law on the Formation of Laws and Regulations, Wednesday (4/12). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Researcher and observer Ahmad Farisi and constitutional law student of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta A. Fahrur Rozi filed a judicial review of Article 23 paragraph (2) of Law No. 15 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Laws and Regulations (P3 Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Case No. 165/PUU-XXII/2024 hearing was presided over by Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, Justice Anwar Usman, and Justice Arsul Sani on Wednesday, December 4, 2024.

Before the panel of justices in the panel courtroom, Fahrur, who attended the hearing online, stated that Article 23 paragraph (2) of P3 Law reads, “In certain circumstances, the House of Representatives or the President may propose a Bill outside the National Legislation Program including: a. to overcome extraordinary circumstances, conflicts, or natural disasters; and b. other certain circumstances that ensure the national urgency of a Bill that can be jointly agreed upon by the organs of the House of Representatives specifically dealing with legislation and the minister or head of the institution that organizes government affairs in the field of Legislation Formation” contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Petitioner I stated that he is an individual citizen who is actively and focused on conducting review and research on constitutional, democratic, and election issues. Petitioner I felt responsible and had a specific interest in academic knowledge regarding the prevailing state system, both epistemically and systematically, regarding enforcing legal norms that limit and violate citizens’ constitutional rights. Meanwhile, Petitioner II is an active constitutional law student who joins several student organizations at the national level, focusing on constitutional issues and actively engaging in discussions and advocacy on the government’s decisions and policies.

Regarding the norms, the Petitioners could not clearly identify the concept and context of their implementation in the system and mechanisms of law formation. The petitioners considered Article 23 paragraph (2) of the P3 Law as a dead article that does not provide clarity and legal and political certainty over the implemented laws and regulations formation. If read systematically, Fahrur added, the article provides the basis authorities to the House of Representatives/government to propose bills outside the national legislation program with repeated and overlapping clauses and ambiguous standards.

According to the Petitioners, Article 23 paragraph (2) letter b of Law Number 15 of 2019, which regulates the formation of laws and regulations outside the national legislation program in specific circumstances, does not contain clear and definite measures on how legislation that is only based on the clause of “national urgency” and emphasizes “approval” between the government and house of representatives is enforced.

“Hence, the legal uncertainty due to the prevailing provisions in the article clearly can be used by the lawmakers to produce laws and regulations outside the list of national legislation programs based on the urge of certain temporary and seasonal political interests,” Fahrur explained.

Constitutional Losses

Regarding the petition, Justice Arsul Sani advised the petitioners to provide a concrete relationship between their legal standings and the potential constitutional losses. “What are the causal relationships between constitutional losses and legal standing as a researcher, observer, and student. Is it with the creation of the latest cluster through national legislation that contains a list of bills that are made by lawmakers in 4 - 5 years. Then the national legislation is subdivided into priorities, outside the national legislation there will be open commulative legislation, for example there is a Constitutional Court decision, related to the state budget, and others. If there is a clause that is requested, from the perspective of public participation, is it better? Because even though it is specific, it is still open to participation,” Justice Arsul explained.

Before closing the hearing, Justice Enny stated that the petitioners were given 14 days to revise their petition. The revision may be submitted to the Registrar’s Office on Tuesday, December 17, 2024, at the latest. The Court will inform the petitioners of the schedule of the next hearing. (*)

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

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 prevails.

---