Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra presiding over the preliminary hearing of Case No. 117/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking, Tuesday (29/7/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Several citizens identified as the Preparatory Committee of the Constitution Congress filed a material judicial review of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking to the Constitutional Court. However, the Petitioners for Case No. 117/PUU-XXIII/2025 did not attend the preliminary hearing scheduled on Tuesday, July 29, 2025.

“The Petitioners did not appear even though they had sent a message requesting a postponement because they were not ready, and the reason for not being ready might be unclear. Later, the Petitioners’ absence in this case will be discussed,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, who presided over the hearing along with Justice Ridwan Mansyur and Justice Arsul Sani.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated that the court clerk had confirmed the unattendance of the Petitioners before the hearing. As a result, he immediately concluded the hearing.

Based on the petition submitted to the Court, the Petitioners comprise Trijono Hardjono (chairman), Salyo Kinasih Bumi (secretary), and Zulkifly (treasurer). They question the position of the People’s Consultative Assembly’s Decree (TAP MPR) within the Indonesian legal system.

They argue that TAP MPR is a legal product that is about to be removed under the reformed legal regime. It is parallel with the discourse to also remove MPR as an institution authorized to represent the people’s sovereignty.

On one hand, the position of TAP MPR is acknowledged within the hierarchy of legislation as provided by Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b of the Lawmaking Law. However, on the other hand, the significance of the TAP MPR is limited as stipulated in the Elucidation of Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b of the Lawmaking Law, which becomes the object of the judicial review.

The provision in question states that what is meant by the TAP MPR includes the Temporary TAP MPR and TAP MPR that are still in force as referred to in Article 2 and Article 4 of the TAP MPR Number: I/MPR/2003 on the Review of the Material and Legal Status of the Temporary TAP MPR and TAP MPR from 1960 to 2002, dated August 7, 2003. However, the textual provisions of Article 2 and Article 4 of the TAP MPRI RI only apply conditionally, with specific provisions or until a law is enacted. Therefore, if used permanently, it loses its juridical relevance once those conditional requirements have been surpassed.

Thus, according to the Petitioner, the phrase ‘still in force as referred to’ ultimately cannot indicate legal certainty. This is because the provision regarding the non-applicability of the Temporary TAP MPR/TAP MPR does not clearly and explicitly specify definitively which of them remains applicable.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare that the norm limiting the validity of the Temporary TAP MPR/TAP MPR in the Explanation to Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b of the Lawmaking Law is not in accordance with Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and/or is contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) as well as Article 3 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner also requests that the Elucidation of Article 7 paragraph (1) letter b of the Lawmaking Law be declared legally non-binding.

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: N. Rosi

PR: Andhini SF.

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.

---