Petitioners Fail to Attend Hearing on Constitutional Court Law Review

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, along with Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani, presiding over the petition revision hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on Constitutional Court, Tuesday (11/11). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

Jakarta (MKRI) - The petitioners in Case No. 196/PUU-XXIII/2025, two postgraduate students Putra Arista Pratama and Aullya Wy Ridzky Regitafitri, did not attend the petition revision hearing for judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (MK Law), challenging its compatibility with the 1945 Constitution. The absence was confirmed by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, who presided over the Panel, after checking for their presence at the start of the session and receiving no response.

“For Petition 196/PUU-XXIII/2025, no one is present; not in the courtroom, not outside. Has a revision been submitted? None. This fact will be reported at the justices’ deliberative meeting,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated, accompanied by Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani, on Tuesday, November 11, 2025.

Notably, the deadline for submitting amendments was that same day, November 11, 2025, following the preliminary hearing held on Wednesday, October 29, 2025. Previously, the petitioners had argued that the MK Law does not contain provisions establishing effective mechanisms for implementing Constitutional Court decisions, especially those that are non-self-executing or require legislative or executive follow-up.

“This legislative omission is not a mere technical gap, but amounts to a fundamental structural failure. This failure is directly against the very essence of the rule of law as enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution,” Putra stated online during the Preliminary Hearing of Case No. 196/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, October 29, 2025.

The petitioners specifically challenged the constitutionality of Article 10 paragraph (1) of the MK Law, which reads, ““The Constitutional Court has the authority to adjudicate at the first and final instance, and its decisions shall be final, for: a. reviewing laws against the 1945 Constitution...” While this provision explicitly affirms the court’s finality, neither it nor the MK Law as a whole provides any norm or mechanism to ensure the practical effect of that finality.

They argue that the logical consequence of this final and binding character is that Constitutional Court decisions are erga omnes—legally effective for all parties. When the Court annuls a statutory norm for unconstitutionality, the ruling should apply not only inter partes (to the parties in dispute) but also to all citizens and state entities, without exception.

The absence of an “executive” norm is thus the central focus of their petition, as it has created a legal vacuum that undermines the rule of law and the guarantee of legal certainty and justice outlined in the 1945 Constitution. As future legal practitioners or academics, the petitioners contend they are at risk of suffering a constitutional rights violation.

In their petitum, the petitioners request the Court to declare Article 10 paragraph (1) of the MK Law inconsistent with Article 1 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and not binding in law, unless the phrase “shall be final” is interpreted as “including a guarantee of implementation through an effective mechanism.” They also request that the Court order the legislature and the President to amend the MK Law to confer executive effect on the Court’s final decisions.

News

Petitioners Fail to Attend Hearing on Constitutional Court Law Review