Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra delivering the Court’s opinion at the ruling hearing on the Lawmaking Law, Friday (1/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the ruling hearing for Decision No. 144/PUU-XXII/2024 petitioned by constitutional law student of UIN (State Islamic University) Syarif Hidayatullah of Jakarta A. Fahrur Rozi. He challenged Article 96 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking.

The Court rendered the petition inadmissible. In its legal considerations, delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Court stated that it had advised the Petitioner to complete evidence to support his legal standing on the presumed loss of constitutional right, where he claimed he had been restricted from participating in lawmaking due to the phrase “who are directly affected and/or have an interest” in the article.

“However, after examining pieces of evidence that the Petitioner submitted, it was found that he only added Exhibit P-5, photocopies of screenshots, flyers, and documentation of his legal advocacy activities,” said the deputy chief justice at the hearing in the plenary courtroom on Friday, January 3, 2025.

Exhibit P-5 was only an essay of his published in one of online media sites, photos of discussions and film viewing, where he was speaking to the House of Representatives (DPR) Commission III.

Justice Saldi said that to support his assertion of constitutional impairment, the Petitioner should have affirmed his legal standing by explaining that he had participated in lawmaking but nevertheless is restricted by Article 96 paragraph (3) of the Lawmaking Law.

“As such, the Court holds that the Petitioner could not give evidence as a party involved in the lawmaking process,” Justice Saldi emphasized.

“Based on the aforementioned fact and legal consideration, there is no doubt in the Court to declare the Petitioner not having the legal standing to file the a quo petition,” he added.

Also read:

Labor Party, Hanura Agree Presidential Threshold Be Changed, Golkar Disagrees

Student Claims His Right to Participate in Lawmaking Restricted 

The Petitioner filed for a material judicial review petition of Article 96 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking, arguing that the article is not in line with popular sovereignty, freedom of expression, and the guarantee of the right to advance oneself in fighting for their rights collectively.

In the second petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the following phrases unconstitutional and not legally binding: “who are directly affected and/or have an interest” in Article 96 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2022 if not be interpreted as “including those who have concern”; “of the material contained in” in Article 96 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2022 if not be interpreted as “including formal aspects.”

Author            : Nawir Arsyad Akbar
Editor             : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                 : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator       : 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.

---