Sidang Perkara Nomor 80/PUU-XXIII/2025. Rabu, 4 Juni 2025.

Summary

The session discusses the proceedings of a constitutional court case regarding the 2025 amendment to Indonesia's State-Owned Enterprises law. The petitioners, represented by legal counsel, present their arguments for changes in several legal provisions, emphasizing their constitutional violations. They seek the court’s approval for their request to annul specific articles in the law. The session includes formalities like verifying evidence and discussing procedural aspects. The court closes the session, acknowledging the ongoing deliberation and deferring further decision-making.

Takeaways

• 😀 The court session begins with the announcement of the opening of Case No. 80 GAR PU, GAR datar 23, Romawi GAR 2025, and is open to the public.
• 😀 The greeting 'Selamat sore, Assalamualaikum, warahmatullahi wabarakatuh' is delivered to those present.
• 😀 The legal representatives for both sides introduce themselves, with Mukti Ali, SH, and Markus Manupaksagala, SH, on one side, and Janses Esaloho, S, and Linda CK, SH, MH, on the other.
• 😀 The main agenda of the session is to discuss improvements to the petition, and the judge requests a concise presentation of the revisions.
• 😀 The first improvement concerns the norms under examination, which have been adjusted to better align with the petition's demands.
• 😀 The authority of the Constitutional Court has been clarified, with the adjustments following the court's previous suggestions.
• 😀 The legal standing of the petitioners has been refined to include their status as taxpayers, in accordance with the court’s advice.
• 😀 Evidence from the petitioners has been further substantiated, including details about their constitutional losses.
• 😀 The legal analysis of the petition has been deepened, and a comparison with other countries has been included.
• 😀 The petition's wording has been revised slightly, with the main request being for the Constitutional Court to accept the petition in full and declare certain articles unconstitutional.

Q & A

What was the purpose of the court session described in the transcript?

The session was held to discuss the request for the correction of the petition in case number 80 GAR PU, GAR datar 23, Romawi GAR 2025.

Who were the lawyers present at the session?

The lawyers present were Mukti Ali, SH, Markus Manupaksagala, SH, Janses Esaloho, S, and Linda CK, SH, MH.

What was the main agenda of the session as mentioned in the opening?

The main agenda was to present the key points of the corrections for the petition.

What specific changes were made to the petition based on the court's previous advice?

The petition was revised in terms of the norms being tested, the authority of the Constitutional Court, the legal standing of the petitioners, the activities and evidence provided by the petitioners, and the legal analysis of the norms.

What is the significance of the term 'legal standing' in this context?

Legal standing refers to the petitioners' position or entitlement to bring the case before the court, which was clarified and refined in the revised petition.

How did the petitioners strengthen their legal arguments in the revision?

The petitioners deepened and sharpened their legal analysis of each norm being tested and provided comparisons with other countries to support their arguments.

What was the final request made in the petition's 'petitum' (request for judgment)?

The petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court annul certain articles of the 2025 BUMN Law, declaring them unconstitutional and not legally binding.

What specific laws were mentioned in the petition's petitum for annulment?

The petitioners sought the annulment of specific articles in the 2025 Law on State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN), particularly articles 3F, 3G, 3X, and 71.

What was the court's action concerning the evidence presented by the petitioners?

The court verified the presented evidence, which included written documents labeled P1 to P21.

What was mentioned about the procedural aspect of the petitioner's case during the court session?

It was noted that the case involved both formal and material legal tests, with the formal test being examined first before proceeding to the material aspects, and the final decision would be announced by the court's administrative staff.