TheJakartaPost

Please Update your browser

Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.

Jakarta Post

Court rejects judicial review request on COVID-19 Perppu

  • Ghina Ghaliya
    Ghina Ghaliya

    The Jakarta Post

Jakarta   /   Tue, June 23, 2020   /   05:30 pm
Court rejects judicial review request on COVID-19 Perppu Nine justices sit in the Constitutional Court during a hearing at the court. (JP/Seto Wardhana)

The Constitutional Court has rejected a petition for a judicial review of regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) No. 1/2020 on the COVID-19 pandemic response, stating that the Perppu has already been passed into law.

The decision to reject the petition was made at the justices’ consultation meeting attended by the nine court justices on June 6.

"The petition has lost its objective […] and therefore cannot be accepted," Chief Justice Anwar Usman said during a hearing on Tuesday.

The House of Representatives gave its approval to pass the Perppu into law during a plenary session on May 12 – two months after President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo signed the regulation in late-March. The government later passed the House’s approval into Law No. 2/2020.

Read also: House passes virus response Perppu amid graft concerns

The law allows the government to extend the state budget deficit beyond the normal 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) limit and allocate the spending to programs related to COVID-19 relief.

Article 27 of the law contains provisions that protect officials who make fiscal and monetary decisions from any legal charges, as long as they act “in good faith and according to the law”.

The plaintiffs -- comprising five groups of anti-corruption activists, including the Indonesian Anticorruption Community (MAKI) – said they had filed another judicial review against the 2020 law.

MAKI coordinator Boyamin Saiman said the plaintiffs had requested the law be revoked, especially the provisions stipulated in Article 27.

They filed the second petition on May 20, arguing that Article 27 violated the Constitution and several prevailing laws, including the 2003 State Finances Law and the 2006 Supreme Audit Agency Law.

“We expected this to happen after the House passed it into law, so we’ve submitted a new petition to the Court.”