Thursday, September 09, 2010 11:27 AM
Follow us on
Follow us on
Delays in hearings between legislators to decide the House’s stance on several regulations in-lieu-of-law (Perppu) have prompted the Constitutional Court to step up to the plate and open its door for future judicial reviews of Perppu.
Constitutional Court chief Mahfud MD said Monday that the court had to play a role in deciding whether a Perppu was constitutional while the House of Representatives lingered on discussing its faith.
A regulation in-lieu-of-law is issued by the President at times of extraordinary emergency conditions. The House will then decide whether to endorse it and make it law or to reject it.
“Now, should the House state its stance on a Perppu in the first hearing after the regulation is issued? Or in any hearing? Which would mean the House could decide whenever they like.
“If the court does not have the authority to review a Perppu, it is possible that someday there will be a Perppu issued that the legislators at the House will not immediately hold a hearing to discuss.
Instead, they will find reasons to postpone their decision until the regulation includes articles that are unconstitutional,” Mahfud said.
The House, he added, had already been indecisive regarding a Perppu.
“There has been a Perppu that has had its legitimacy questioned because the House had not endorsed nor rejected it. Legislators in this case have only asked the government to propose a new bill to replace the Perppu,” he said.
He also said that it was important for the court to have the authority to do a judicial review on a Perppu to avoid potential “misuse of power and political games”.
The court, Mahfud said, also fears that someday there will be such a regulation issued by the President but, for some reason, legislators at the House will not be able to conduct a hearing.
“There might be a condition where the House is pressed by a political force that prevents it from conducting a hearing. If that happens, a Perppu could be issued to disable certain institutions, including the House itself,” he added.
On Monday, the court issued its verdict on a judicial review of Perppu 4, 2009, which was used as a legal basis for the appointment of three interim leaders of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in October last year.
The court ruled that the judicial review request for the Perppu could not be granted because the petitioners, who all work as advocates, did not have a legal standing.
Legislators at the House had not yet decided their stance on the Perppu.
On Monday, the court also gave its verdict on three other judicial review requests. Two of them were for several contentious articles in the 2009 Parliament Law and were filed by several members of the regional legislative councils of Alor regency in East Nusa Tenggara and the Hulu Sungai Tengah in South Kalimantan.
The court ruled that the petitioners did not have a legal standing and therefore could not approved their requests.
A judicial review request for contentious articles in the 2003 Terrorism Law was also rejected after the petitioner, Abu Jibril, cancelled his request.
Abu, the father of terrorism suspect Mohamad Jibril, said his lawyers had not included several articles that he felt violated his constitutional rights in the request.
