Ruling hearing on Tuesday (4/29/2025). Photo by PR/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) has granted the withdrawal of the petition for Case Number 20/PUU-XXIII/2025 concerning the judicial review of material matters against Law Number 13/2022 of the Second Amendment to Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of Legislation. The Constitutional Court has also confirmed the existence of the withdrawal application in the previous trial. In essence, the Petitioner for the case confirmed the revocation or withdrawal in question.

"Granting the withdrawal of the Petitioners' petition," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo in the ruling hearing on Tuesday (29/4/2025) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Jakarta.

Also read:

Provision on Public Participation in Lawmaking Process Questioned

Petition on Public Participation in Lawmaking Process Withdrawn

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners highlighted the questioned provision that does not provide fair legal certainty to the Petitioners as individuals concerned with the lawmaking process. He emphasized that there is a discrepancy between the qualification for the right to participate in lawmaking in the article and the elucidation.

Furthermore, the Petitioners highlighted the lawmaking trend that increasingly disregards meaningful public participation. They cited the use of the a quo article to exclude certain groups in the discussion of the bills on the Presidential Advisory Council and the Ministry of State. The legislators argued that the material in these two bills did not have a direct impact on society, and therefore did not require public participation. The Petitioners believe such interpretation can be used to limit public participation in lawmaking. According to the Petitioners, “The possibility that the provision of the a quo article will also be used again by the legislators to exclude the Petitioners’ participation as a group that has concerns [over lawmaking] in the future, then constitutional loss for the Petitioner, according to logical reasoning, can be ascertained to occur,” said Ilham.

In their petition, the Petitioners filed the judicial review petition of Article 96 paragraph (3) of Law No. 13 of 2022, specifically the phrase “and/or has an interest” in the body of the article and the phrase “registered with the authorized ministry” in the elucidation. They believe both phrases are contrary to the principles of popular sovereignty, freedom of expression, the right to fight for interests collectively, and fair legal certainty for citizens as guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28C paragraph (2).

The Petitioners also criticized the shift in the meaning of the right to participate in the legislative process. According to them, the Court had previously interpreted that participation was not only limited to parties directly affected, but also included individuals or groups who had concerns about public policy. However, the provisions being tested actually narrowed the scope.

On that basis, the Petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to declare Article 96 paragraph (3) of Law 13/2022 contradictory to the 1945 Constitution insofar as the phrase "those directly affected and/or have interests", unless it is also interpreted to include parties "who have concerns". In addition, the Petitioners also requested that the phrase in the explanation of the related article, namely “registered with the authorized ministry”, be declared not legally binding.

Read the full decision No. 20/PUU-XXIII/2025 in here.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : N. Rosi

PR        : Fauzan F.
Translator  : SO 

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.

---