The Constitutional Court panel of judges rejected a petition to annul the new capital law filed by several activists and intellectuals. The Court deemed that the deliberation of the capital law was in line with regulations and the Constitution.
“[The panel of judges] adjudicate to reject the petition of petitioners in it’s entirety,” said Constitutional Court Chairman Anwar Usman during the July 20, 2022 hearing.
The petition was filed by 12 plaintiffs comprising of activists and intellectuals. They are, among others, Abdullah Hehamahua, Marwan Batubara, Muhyiddin Junaidi, Lt. Gen. (ret) Suharto, Maj. Gen. (ret) Soenarko MD and Taufik Bahaudin.
The Court stated that a recent survey on the rejection of the Indonesia’s capital relocation from Jakarta to East Kalimantan cannot be a base for consideration. Apart from that, another reason on the country’s economic condition caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has no correlation with the constitutionality of the capital law.
“Concern on the pandemic cannot delay the deliberation of the new capital bill,” said Usman.
The Court perceived that the deliberation process of the new capital law has been transparent and participative.
Prior to the passing of the bill into a law, the House of Representatives (DPR) had invited many parties in their hearings and also conducted roadshows to familiarize the bill.
“The House invited figures in the society and academicians from various universities in Indonesia [to the hearings],” said judge Enny Nurbaningsih,
The Constitutional Court said that fast track legislation is a permissible effort by the government and the House.
Read also: Petitioners remain bleak that Constitutional Court grant their appeal on new capital law
Previously, petitioner Batubara was skeptical that the Constitutional Court would grant his petition to annul the new capital law. He believed the Court would reject their petition instead, or at the very least declare that the law was conditionally unconstitutional, as was the case with the Omnibus Law on Job Creation. The petitioners also believed that the deliberation of the new capital law is deemed violating the principle of transparency.
Lawyer Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, representing the petitioners, said he found several facts before concluding that based on case examination during the hearing, there was no postulate, evidence or explanation from the president and experts from the House that could show that the deliberation process of Law No. 3/2022 on the new capital involved public participation as required by the Constitutional Court ruling No. 91/PUU-XX/2022.
