Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, Justice Ridwan Mansyur and Justice Arsul Sani in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking Law, at the Panel Courtroom, Monday (19/5/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another material judicial review petition of Article 96 paragraph (8) of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking (Lawmaking Law), on Monday, May 19, 2025. The agenda was to hear the petition revision.

Case No. 48/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Muhammad Syafiq Wafi (Petitioner I), M. Hilmi Miftahzen Reza (Petitioner II), Abdullah Widy Asshidiq (Petitioner III), Laksmi Dava Diandra Kirana (Petitioner IV), Faradita Raihani (Petitioner V), and Rifki Yustisio (Petitioner VI). The petitioners attended the hearing online.

In the hearing presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, along with Justice Ridwan Mansyur and Justice Arsul Sani, Syafiq Wafi delivered the subject matter of the revised petition. Among other things are the petitums.

“In petitums, … requesting the Court to declare Article 96 paragraph (8) of Law No. 13 of 2022 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia dan does not have legally binding force as long as it is not interpreted that the word “may” because it allows the House of Representatives to not provide explanation on the result of the discussion on the whole types of laws and still obliges the House of Representatives to provide the discussion of the peoples’ input to the law made through the national legislation program,” Syafiq Wafi delivered the revised petitums.

Also read:

Public Participation Mechanism in Lawmaking Law Deemed Ambiguous

In the preliminary hearing, on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, the Petitioners argued that Article 96 paragraph (8) of the Lawmaking Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Petitioners explained that the word “may” in the norm refers to an option, thus not reflecting legal certainty and justice relating to the mechanism of explanation to the public of the results of the discussion over public inputs on a bill of law. This ambiguity, the Petitioners asserted, has led to legal uncertainty that threatens the rights of citizens, especially on the mechanism of public participation in lawmaking.

Therefore, the Petitioners request that the word “may” be replaced by “shall” in order to signify legal certainty in expressing responses requested by the public as referred to in Article 96 paragraph (1) of Law No. 13 of 2022 on Lawmaking.

Read more: Petition of Case No. 48/PUU-XXIII/2025 in Indonesian.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

---