The rise and dynamics of ‘conditional decision’ in Indonesian constitutional review

This research will elabourate the Constitutional Court’s ‘conditional decision’ utilization pattern, to give a better understanding of what ‘conditional decision’ is and how the dynami[r]

(1)

THE RISE AND DYNAMICS OF ‘CONDITIONAL DECISION’ IN INDONESIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW

Dian Agung Wicaksono and Faiz Rahman Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta Abstract

As a newly established judicial institution, the Indonesian Constitutional Court already plays a significant role in upholding the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia through its authorities specifies in Article 24C of the Constitution One of the authorities which has the most case compared to others is the authority to review a Law against the Constitution, or often called a constitutional review Since the establishment of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, constitutional review cases increased considerably To date, the Constitutional Court has been deciding more than 1200 constitutional review cases Among those decisions, there are some that include new formulated norms and constitutionality requirement to the reviewed norms, which make it becomes ‘conditionally constitutional’ or ‘conditionally unconstitutional’ The Court has been using this type of decision in approximately one-tenth of all constitutional review cases Furthermore, the emergence of so-called ‘conditional decision’ gives a distinctive dynamic in the implementation of constitutional review authority It gradually shifts the paradigm of the Constitutional Court’s position as a negative legislator towards a positive legislator Moreover, the utilization of ‘conditionally constitutional’ and ‘conditionally unconstitutional’ decision also shows a unique pattern In the early years of the Constitutional Court, ‘conditionally constitutional’ decision is more widely used than ‘conditionally unconstitutional’ decision However, since 2009, the Court seemed to prefer using ‘conditionally unconstitutional’ decision This research will elabourate the Constitutional Court’s ‘conditional decision’ utilization pattern, to give a better understanding of what ‘conditional decision’ is and how the dynamics in the constitutional review can significantly change the preference of ‘conditional decision’ type used by the Constitutional Court in deciding constitutional review cases using this approach

Keywords: constitutional court, constitutional review, conditional decision pattern, Indonesian judiciary

1 Introduction

(2)

111

of Law, the existence of independent judicial power has been guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (the Constitution)1 Furthermore, Article 24(2) of the Constitution stated that judicial power in Indonesia is held by two equal institutions, namely the Supreme Court and the judicial bodies underneath, as well as the Constitutional Court Such construction shows that judicial power in Indonesia adheres to a bifurcation system2.

Constitutional Court as one of the judiciary branches has an important role to uphold constitutional justice in the midst of community life through its authorities that is limitedly given by the Constitution, namely: constitutional review, decide upon disputes over authorities of state institutions, decide upon the dissolution of political parties, decide upon disputes of the results of general elections, as well as giving decision on the opinion of the House of Representatives (DPR) regarding alleged violations by the President and/or Vice President according to the Constitution Based on these authorities, the Constitutional Court has essential functions as the guardian of the democracy), the protector of the citizen’s constitutional rights), and the protector of human rights3

Among these authorities, constitutional review is the authority that has the greatest number of cases By October 2019, 1266 cases have been decided4 A large number of cases is reasonable, considering that constitutional review is the only authority that allows a wider community to become a petitioner5 It is different from other Constitutional Court’s authorities that already limit the parties that can be a petitioner6 Apart from the limitations on who can be the petitioner, another thing that makes constitutional review has the most cases is the object of the review, which is the Law As it is known that the nature of Law is general Therefore, if a Law comes into force, the whole citizens considered to understand and obliged to obey the Law In fact, not necessarily a Law in force immediately protects the public, worse, it may even violate their constitutional rights

In the development, there are dynamics in the imposition of the constitutional review decision, namely by the emergence of conditional decision that consists of conditionally constitutional and conditionally unconstitutional Up to 2018, the Court has imposed approximately 140 conditional decisions, or about one-tenth of the total constitutional review decisions by 2018, even though there are no provisions concerning conditional decision in Law No 24 of 2003 jo Law No of 2011

on the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court Law) Moreover, the Constitutional Court Law

explicitly stated that there are only three types of decisions, namely decision that granted, rejected,

According to International Commission of Jurist, the existence of a free and impartial judiciary is one of the conditions for democratic governance under the rule of law (See Majda El-Muhtaj, Human Rights in Indonesian Constitution:

From the Original 1945 Constitution to the 2002 Amended Constitution (Kencana 2005) 20).

1 See the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Article 1(3) dan Article 24(1).

2 Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, “Mahkamah Konstitusi: Perspektif Politik dan Hukum”, Kompas (24 September 2002) As citated in Ni’matul Huda, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the Idea of Re-Amendment (Rajawali Pers 2008) 252

3 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Annual Report of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of

Indonesia (Secretariat General of the Constitutional Court 2006) 29.

4 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, “Rekapitulasi Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang” <https://mkri id/index.php?page=web.RekapPUU> accessed 10 October 2019

5 Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court, Article 51(1)

(3)

ASIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND TRENDS

112

and dismissed the petition1

Through conditional decision, the Court provides constitutional interpretations and requirements for the reviewed norms Thus, the validity of the norms depends on whether the conditions specified by the Court in the decisions are fulfilled It has led to a debate among academics concerning the shift in the function of the Constitutional Court as a negative legislator to positive legislators It stems from the fact that the Court does not only revoke the reviewed norms but indirectly seemed to form new norms through constitutional requirements given its decision

Moreover, a conditional decision is strongly linked to the concept of judicial activism As Kmiec states in its article, one of the main meanings of judicial activism is judicial “legislation”2 Additionally, if it is contextualized in the authority of constitutional review, then the process of “legislation” is closely related to the existence of “formulation of new norms” through constitutionality requirements in a conditional decision Therefore, a conditional decision can also be used as an indicator to measure judicial activism that occurs in the Indonesian Constitutional Court The emerging discourse regarding judicial activism practice is strongly linked to the limitations of the role of the judiciary in a rule of law3, especially in the context of separation of powers In the case of constitutional review, the existence of “norm formulation” in the conditional decision will certainly raise the question of whether the Constitutional Court has carried out “legislation” through the Court, which supposed to be performed by the legislative

Based on the background above, this paper discusses and elabourates on the pattern of the Constitutional Court’s conditional decision in the constitutional review Hopefully, it can give a better understanding regarding what ‘conditional decision’ is and how the dynamics in the constitutional review can significantly shift the preference of the type of conditional decision used in deciding constitutional review The discussion is divided into two parts The first part discusses the origin and type of conditional decisions in the Indonesian constitutional review The later part analyses the dynamics of the utilization of a conditional decision

A Origin and Type of Conditional Decisions in Indonesian Constitutional Review

As stipulated in Constitutional Court Law, there are three types of constitutional review verdict, namely the verdict that declare the petition granted, rejected, and dismissed4 However, dynamics in Indonesian constitutional review gave birth to a new type of decision called the conditional decision, which consists of conditionally constitutional and conditionally unconstitutional decisions These two types of decisions are discussed below

1 Conditionally Constitutional Decision

Conditionally Constitutional Decision first used in the review of Law No of 2004 on Water Resource (Water Resource Law) The idea of conditionally constitutional decision arises because some Laws often have a very general wording formulation that can be broadly interpreted Further, 1 See Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court, Article 56.

2 Keenan D Kmiec, “The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism”, [2004] 92(5) California Law Review 1444

3 Robert Shenton French, “Judicial Activism – The Boundaries of the Judicial Role”, Paper, Lawasia Conference, Ho Chi Minh City, 10 November 2009, p

(4)

113

that formulation is not yet known whether the implementation contradicts the Constitutional Law1 Harjono, a Constitutional Judge, states his argument on the idea of conditionally constitutional decision as follow2:

[…] Therefore, we create by proposing a condition: if a provision whose formulation is too general and in the future is implemented in the form of A, then it is not contrary to the Constitution However, if the implementation is B, hence it will conflict with the Constitution Thus, the provision can be reviewed again

Accordingly, a reviewed provision will be declared constitutional, but regarding the constitutionality of the norm, there are conditions that should be fulfilled Then, the provision can be re-reviewed if the implementation is not in accordance with the conditions specified by the Constitutional Court in the decision

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court stated that conditionally constitutional decision is imposed if the reviewed provision can be interpreted differently Moreover, the difference could lead to legal uncertainty which violated the constitutional rights of the citizen3 The conditionally constitutional decision imposed to give specific interpretations to prevent the uncertainty or the violation of citizen’s rights4

There are five characteristics of conditionally constitutional decision as follow5:

First, there are certain interpretations or requirements, so a norm that is reviewed remains constitutional if it is carried out following the interpretation or conditions specified Second, based on a verdict that rejected the petition Third, conditional clauses can be found in legal consideration only, or both in consideration and verdict Fourth, it requires re-review if the implementation is not according to the constitutionality requirements specified in the previous decision Fifth, both explicitly and implicitly encourage legislative review by the legislative

In general, the most apparent characteristics is the first, second, and third ones, which is related to the constitutional interpretation or requirements for the reviewed norms, decision that based on the verdict that rejected the petition, and the location of the conditional clause These three characteristics can be found in all conditionally constitutional decisions Further, for the second characteristic, there is an exception if the petitioner requests the Court to interpret the reviewed article in a conditionally constitutional manner6 As for the fourth and fifth characteristics, only several conditionally constitutional explicitly stated that the reviewed provision can be re-review, or the Court order the legislative to perform a legislative review to the norms reviewed7.

1 Harjono, Constitution as a Nation’s House: Legal Thought of Dr Harjono, S.H., M.C.L., Deputy Chairman of the

Constitutional Court (Secretariat General and Registrar of the Constitutional Court 2008) 178.

2 Tim Penyusun Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi, Constitutional Court Procedural Law (Secretariat General and Registrar of the Constitutional Court 2010) 142

3 Constitutional Court Decision No 19/PUU-VII/2010 on the Review of Law No 36 of 2009 on Health against the

Constitution [1 November 2011] 137.

4 Ibid.

5 Faiz Rahman and Dian Agung Wicaksono, “Existence and Characteristics of Constitutional Court’s Conditional Decision” [2016] 13(2) Jurnal Konstitusi 348, 361-363.

(5)

114

2 Conditionally Unconstitutional Decision

The emergence of conditionally constitutional decision is based on the argument that, if it only refers to the type of verdicts regulated in Article 56 of the Constitutional Court Law (granted, rejected, and dismissed the petition), it will be difficult to review a Law which has a very general formulation but it is not yet known whether the implementation contradicts the Constitution1.

Furthermore, the conditionally unconstitutional decision also arises because the Constitutional Court considers that conditionally constitutional decisions are often ineffective because of the failure of the subject of the decision to understand the conditionally constitutional decision.2 It is related to the conditionally constitutional decision that based on the verdict that rejects the petition Therefore, the subject of the decision assumes that there are no constitutional obligations that need to be followed up3 Conditionally Unconstitutional Decision is the opposite of conditionally constitutional decision Thus, the reviewed provisions are declared contrary to the Constitution, if the constitutional requirements are not fulfilled in the implementation of the Law

There are four characteristics of conditionally unconstitutional decision, namely4:

First, there is a conditionally unconstitutional clause in the verdict Second, it is based on the verdict that granted the petition Third, the verdict can be in the form of meaning or giving requirements of unconstitutionality to the norm being reviewed Fourth, it is substantially the same as the conditionally constitutional decision

In regards to the second characteristic, there is an exception in several decisions that declared the petition rejected, in which the petitioner requests the Court to interpret the provisions conditionally constitutional5 Furthermore, concerning the fourth characteristic, it can be seen in the Decision No

54/PUU-VI/2008 which the Court states that “[…] Article a quo at present is unconstitutional and

will become constitutional if the conditions above are fulfilled […]”6 Based on the Court above, it implicitly shows that both types of conditional decisions are basically the same, as in both types, the Court provides requirements that should be obeyed in the implementation, so that the provision will be constitutional Otherwise, the norm becomes unconstitutional

B The Pattern of Conditional Decisions’ Imposition in Constitutional Review Cases in the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

Tracing back to the establishment of the Constitutional Court, the purpose of the Constitutional Court is to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution The purpose can be described in five “functions” attached to the existence of the Court, namely as the guardian of the Constitution, the final interpreter 1 Tim Penyusun Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi, Op.cit., 144.

2 Constitutional Court Decision No 54/PUU-VI/2008 on the Review of Law No 39 of 2007 on the Amendment of Law

No 11 of 1995 on Excise against the Constitution [14 April 2009] 61.

3 Syukri Asy’ari, Meyrinda Rahmawaty Hilipito, and Mohammad Mahrus Ali, “Model and Implementation of Constitutional Court’s Constitutional Review Decision (Case Studies of 2003-2012)” [2013] 10(4) Jurnal Konstitusi 675, 687

4 Faiz Rahman and Dian Agung Wicaksono, Op.cit., 374-376. 5 Ibid., 375.

6 Constitutional Court Decision No 54/PUU-VI/2008 on the Review of Law No 39 of 2007 on the Amendment of Law

(6)

115

of the Constitution, the protector of human rights, the protector of citizen’s constitutional rights, and the protector of democracy1 These five functions are embodied into the authorities possessed by the Constitutional Court, namely to examine, hear, and decide upon certain cases based on constitutional considerations The establishment of the Constitutional Court as a special tribunal separately from the Supreme Court is a concept that can be traced long before the modern nation-state, which basically reviewed the harmony of lower legal norms with higher ones2.

Based on Article 24C(1) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has four authorities and one obligation as follow: (1) to adjudicate at the first and last stage, in which the decision is final, to review a Law against the Constitution; (2) decide upon authority disputes of state institutions whose authority is granted by the Constitution; (3) decide upon the dissolution of political parties; (4) decide upon disputes over the results of general elections; and (5) obliged to impose a decision on the opinion of the House of Representative on alleged violations by the President and/or Vice President according to the Constitution3.

Moreover, constitutional review decision balances the interest of the State that could potentially restrict the constitutional rights of citizens, and safeguard the constitutional rights from being reduced, restricted, or even violated4 Along the way, a constitutional review performed by the Court undergoing a paradigm shift from a negative legislator position towards positive legislator It can be seen, for instance, from the cancellation of several Articles regarding the prohibition of ultra

petita in Constitutional Court Law 20115 It implies that the Court can impose a verdict exceeding what is requested by the petitioner, as well as formulate a norm in lieu of the norm that is declared contrary to the Constitution6 Furthermore, the Constitutional Court in its development can also provide constitutional requirements for the reviewed norm to make it constitutional as long as the requirements given by the Court are fulfilled in the form of conditional decision

Looking at the various characteristics of conditional decision as explained in the previous section, conditional decisions essentially attach a set of verdicts containing the contents of the “new norms” and it has a regulating nature It shows that the Constitutional Court is no longer just serves as a negative legislator, but indirectly also become a positive legislator Moreover, based on various theories as proposed by Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Keenan D Kmiec, the efforts of the Constitutional Court in “formulating new norms” by providing constitutionality requirements in the decisions be a form of judicial activism As mentioned above, a judge can be labeled “judicial activists” if they legislate from the bench7.

1 Tim Penyusun Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi, Op.cit., 10.

2 Maruarar Siahaan, Procedural Law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Konstitusi Press 2006) 5. 3 See the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Arts 24C(1) and 24C(2).

4 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Upholding Constitutionalism in the Political Dynamics, Annual

Report of the Indonesian Constitutional Court Year 2014 (Secretariat General and Registrar of Constitutional Court

2014) 12

5 See Constitutional Court Decision No 48/PUU-IX/2011 on the Review of Law No 35 of 2009 on Narcotics and Law

No of 2011 on the Amendment of Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court against the Constitution [18 October

2011]

(7)

116

Since the establishment of the Constitutional Court in 2003, the number of constitutional review decisions has a significant increase Constitutional review is the authority of the Constitutional Court which has the highest number of cases compared to the other Constitutional Court’s authorities1 As of October 2019, 1266 cases have been decided, where 262 petitions are granted, 456 are rejected, 397 are dismissed, 120 are withdrawn, 22 are aborted, and are not the competence of the Constitutional Court See the table below for detailed statistics of constitutional review cases from 2003 to 2018

Table Summary of Constitutional Review Cases (2003-2018)

No Year

from Previous

Year

Registered Total Verdict DecisionTotal al Decision Condition-Granted Rejected Dismissed Withdrawn

2003 24 24 0

2004 20 27 47 11 12 35 2005 12 25 37 10 14 28

2006 27 36 8 11 29

2007 30 37 11 27

2008 10 36 46 10 12 34 2009 12 78 90 15 17 12 51 2010 39 81 120 17 23 16 61 2011 59 86 145 21 29 35 94 2012 51 118 169 30 31 30 97 17 2013 72 109 181 22 52 23 13 110 13 2014 71 140 211 29 41 43 18 131 19 2015 80 140 220 25 50 65 17 157 18 2016 63 111 174 19 34 30 96 14 2017 78 102 180 22 48 44 12 131 15 2018 49 61 151 36 22 67

Total 246 414 364 118 1152 140

Source: Prepared by Author, 2019

The table above shows the upward trend in constitutional review cases in the Constitutional Court, followed by the increasing number of the decision Further, concerning the conditional decision, it illustrates that the conditional decision has been used since the initial period of the Constitutional Court establishment Specifically, it began in 2005 in the era of Jimly Asshiddiqie Constitutional Judge’s leadership

As seen in the table above, there are 140 conditional decisions imposed until 2018 To classify the constitutional review decisions into a conditional and non-conditional decision, the Author analyses each of the constitutional review decisions handed down by the Constitutional Court from 2003 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, “Rekapitulasi Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang” <https://mkri

(8)

117

to 2018 Specifically, the Author examines constitutional review decisions with the “granted” and “rejected” verdict The decisions that have “dismissed” verdict are not considered because this type of decision has not yet entered the subject matter, as the Court decided that the petitioner does not have legal standing and/or the case is not the competence of the Constitutional Court Thus, it does not have a substantial impact on the reviewed norms Below is the elabourated list of conditional decisions imposed by Constitutional Court up to 2018

Table List of Conditional Decision of the Constitutional Court (2003-2018)

No No of Case Case Leadership Period Type of Decision 058-059-060-063/

PUU-II/2004 and 008/PUU-III/2005

Law No of 2004 on Water Resources Jimly Asshiddiqie CC

2 026/PUU-III/2005 Law No 13 of 2005 on State Budget Year 2006

Jimly Asshiddiqie CU

3 019-020/PUU-III/2005

Law No 39 of 2004 on the Placement of Indonesian Workers Abroad

Jimly Asshiddiqie CC

4 003/PUU-IV/2006 Law No 31 of 1999 jo Law No 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption

5 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006

Law No 30 of 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission

6 026/PUU-IV/2006 Law No 18 of 2006 on State Budget Year 2007

7 14-17/PUU-V/2007 Law No 23 of 2003 on General Election of President and Vice President, Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court, Law No of 2004 on Supreme Court, Law No 32 of 2004 on Regional Government, Law No 15 of 2006 on Supreme Audit Board

8 21-22/PUU-V/2007 Law No 25 of 2007 on Investment Jimly Asshiddiqie CC 29/PUU-V/2007 Law No of 1992 on Film Jimly Asshiddiqie CC 10 10/PUU-VI/2008 Law No 10 of 2008 on General Elections

of DPR, DPD, and DPRD Members

11 15/PUU-VI/2008 Law No 10 of 2008 on General Elections of DPR, DPD, and DPRD Members

12 4/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 10 of 2008 on General Elections of DPR, DPD, and DPRD Members, and Law No 12 of 2008 on the Second Amendment to Law No 32 of 2004 on Regional Government

Moh Mahfud MD CU

13 54/PUU-VI/2008 Law No 39 of 2007 on the Amendment to Law No 11 of 1995 on Excise

Moh Mahfud MD CU

14 102/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 42 of 2008 on General Election of President and Vice President

(9)

118

No No of Case Case Leadership Period Type of Decision 15 7/PUU-VII/2009 Criminal Law Code Moh Mahfud MD CC 16 110-111-112-113/

PUU-VII/2009

Law No 10 of 2008 on General Elections of DPR, DPD, and DPRD Members

Moh Mahfud MD CC

17 117/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 27 of 2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD

Moh Mahfud MD CC

18 133/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 30 of 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission

Moh Mahfud MD CU

19 101/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 18 of 2003 on Advocates Moh Mahfud MD CU 20 127/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 56 of 2008 on the Establishment

of Tambrauw Regency in West Papua Province

Moh Mahfud MD CU

21 116/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for the Province of Papua as amended by Law No 35 of 2008 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No of 2008 on the Amendment of Law No 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for the Province of Papua to become a Law

Moh Mahfud MD CU

22 11-14-21-126 and 136/PUU-VII/2009

Law No 20 of 2003 on National Education System, and Law No of 2009 on Education Legal Entities

Moh Mahfud MD CC

23 147/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 32 of 2004 on Regional Government

Moh Mahfud MD CC

24 124/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 27 of 2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD

Moh Mahfud MD CU

25 27/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No 10 of 2008 on General Elections of DPR, DPD, and DPRD Members

Moh Mahfud MD CU

26 49/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No 16 of 2004 on Attorney General Office of the Republic of Indonesia

Moh Mahfud MD CC

27 115/PUU-VII/2009 Law No 13 of 2003 on Manpower Moh Mahfud MD CC 28 1/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No of 1997 on Youth Court Moh Mahfud MD CU 29 5/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 30 of 2002 on Corruption

Eradication Commission

Moh Mahfud MD CU

30 12/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No 36 of 2009 on Health Moh Mahfud MD CU 31 35/PUU-IX/2011 Law No of 2011 on the Amendment to

Law No of 2008 on Political Parties

Moh Mahfud MD CU

32 65/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No of 1981 on Criminal Procedure Law

Moh Mahfud MD CU

33 37/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 13 of 2003 on Manpower Moh Mahfud MD CU 34 58/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No 20 of 2003 on National

Education System

(10)

119

No No of Case Case Leadership Period Type of Decision 35 29/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy

for the Province of Papua as amended by Law No 35 of 2008 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No of 2008 on the Amendment of Law No 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for the Province of Papua to become a Law

Moh Mahfud MD CU

36 2/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 18 of 2009 on Animal Husbandry and Health

Moh Mahfud MD CU

37 81/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 15 of 2011 on Organizing of General Elections

Moh Mahfud MD CU

38 27/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 13 of 2003 on Manpower Moh Mahfud MD CU 39 46/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No of 1974 on Marriage Moh Mahfud MD CU 40 17/PUU-X/2012 Law No 32 of 2004 on Regional

Government

Moh Mahfud MD CU

41 30/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining

Moh Mahfud MD CU

42 32/PUU-VIII/2010 Law No of 2009 on Mineral and Coal Mining

Moh Mahfud MD CU

43 19/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 13 of 2003 on Manpower Moh Mahfud MD CU 44 34/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 41 of 1999 on Forestry Moh Mahfud MD CU 45 58/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 13 of 2003 on Manpower Moh Mahfud MD CU 46 37/PUU-X/2012 Law No 51 of 2009 on the Second

Amendment of Law No of 1986 on State Administrative Court, Law No 50 of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No of 1980 on Religious Court, and Law No 49 of 2009 on the Second Amendment on Law No of 1986 on General Court

Moh Mahfud MD CU

47 70/PUU-IX/2011 Law No of 1992 on Workers’ Social Security, Law No 40 of 2004 on National Social Security System

Moh Mahfud MD CU

48 61/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 20 of 2009 on Title, Orders, and Honours

Moh Mahfud MD CU

49 34/PUU-X/2012 Law No of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court

Moh Mahfud MD CC

50 73/PUU-IX/2011 Law No 32 of 2004 on Regional

Government as Amended Lastly by Law No 12 of 2008

Moh Mahfud MD CU

51 82/PUU-X/2012 Law No 24 of 2011 on Social Security Organizing Body

(11)

120

No No of Case Case Leadership Period Type of Decision 52 10/PUU-X/2012 Law No of 2009 on Mineral and Coal

Mining

Moh Mahfud MD CU

53 69/PUU-X/2012 Law No of 1981 on Criminal Procedural Law

Moh Mahfud MD CU

54 84/PUU-IX/2011 Law No of 2011 on Public Accountant Moh Mahfud MD CU 55 40/PUU-X/2012 Law No 29 of 2004 on Medical Practices Moh Mahfud MD CU 56 64/PUU-X/2012 Law No of 1992 on Banking Moh Mahfud MD CU 57 85/PUU-X/2012 Law No 32 of 2004 on Regional

Government

Moh Mahfud MD CU

58 92/PUU-X/2012 Law No 27 of 2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD, and Law No 12 of 2011 on the Formulation of Laws and Regulations

Moh Mahfud MD CU

59 7/PUU-XI/2013 Law No of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court

Moh Mahfud MD CU

60 18/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 23 of 2006 on Population Administration

Akil Mochtar CU

61 35/PUU-X/2012 Law No 41 of 1999 on Forestry Akil Mochtar CU 62 98/PUU-X/2012 Law No of 1981 on Criminal

Procedural Law

Akil Mochtar CU

63 99/PUU-X/2012 Law N 12 of 1992 on Plant Cultivation System

Akil Mochtar CU

64 39/PUU-XI/2013 Law No of 2008 on Political Parties as Amended to Law No of 2011

Akil Mochtar CU

65 66/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 13 of 2009 on the Establishment of Maybrat Regency in West Papua Province

Akil Mochtar CU

66 86/PUU-X/2012 Law No 23 of 2011 on Zakat Management

Hamdan Zoelva CU

67 27/PUU-XI/2013 Law No of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No 14 of 1985 on Supreme Court, and Law No 18 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No 22 of 2004 on Judicial Commission

Hamdan Zoelva CU

68 14/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 42 of 2008 on General Election of President and Vice President

Hamdan Zoelva CU

69 3/PUU-XI/2013 Law No of 1981 on Criminal Procedural Law

Hamdan Zoelva CU

70 20/PUU-XI/2013 Law No of 2012 on General Elections of DPR, DPD, and DPRD Members

(12)

121

No No of Case Case Leadership Period Type of Decision 71 83/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 15 of 2013 on the Amendment to

Law No 19 of 2012 on State Budget Year 2013

Hamdan Zoelva CU

72 32/PUU-XI/2013 Law No of 1992 on Insurance Business Hamdan Zoelva CU 73 31/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 15 of 2011 on Organizing of

General Elections

Hamdan Zoelva CU

74 26/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 18 of 2003 on Advocates Hamdan Zoelva CU 75 35/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 27 of 2009 on MPR, DPR, DPD,

and DPRD

Hamdan Zoelva CU

76 38/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 44 of 2009 on Hospitals Hamdan Zoelva CU 77 22/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 42 of 2008 on General Election

of President and Vice President

Hamdan Zoelva CU

78 50/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 42 of 2008 on General Election of President and Vice President

Hamdan Zoelva CU

79 67/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 13 of 2003 on Manpower Hamdan Zoelva CU 80 82/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 17 of 2014 on MPR, DPR, DPD,

and DPRD

Hamdan Zoelva CU

81 84/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 40 of 2007 on Limited Liability Companies

Hamdan Zoelva CU

82 87/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 19 of 2013 on Protection and Empowerment of Farmers

Hamdan Zoelva CU

83 16/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 18 of 2011 on the Amendment of Law No 22 of 2004 on Judicial Commission, and Law No 30 of 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission

Hamdan Zoelva CU

84 3/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 17 of 2013 on Community Organizations

Hamdan Zoelva CU

85 82/PUU-XI/2013 Law No 17 of 2013 on Community Organizations

Hamdan Zoelva CU

86 18/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and Management

Arief Hidayat CU

87 19/PUU-XII/2014 Law No of 2005 on National Sports System

Arief Hidayat CU

88 21/PUU-XII/2014 Law No of 1981 on Criminal Procedural Law

Arief Hidayat CU

89 41/PUU-XII/2014 Law No of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus

Arief Hidayat CU

90 33/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No of 2015 on the Amendment of Law No of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No of 2014 on the Elections of Governor, Regent, and Mayor

(13)

122

No No of Case Case Leadership Period Type of Decision 91 51/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No of 2015 on the Amendment

of Law No of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No of 2014 on the Elections of Governor, Regent, and Mayor

Arief Hidayat CU

94 58/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 30 of 2009 on Electricity Arief Hidayat CU 95 76/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 17 of 2014 on MPR, DPR, DPD,

and DPRD

Arief Hidayat CU

96 79/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 17 of 2014 on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD

Arief Hidayat CU

97 68/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No of 2004 on Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes

Arief Hidayat CU

100 112/PUU-XII/2014 and 36/PUU-XIII/2015

Law No 18 of 2003 on Advocates Arief Hidayat CU

101 7/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 13 of 2003 on Manpower Arief Hidayat CU 102 105/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No of 2015 on the Amendment

(14)

123

No No of Case Case Leadership Period Type of Decision 103 95/PUU-XII/2014 Law No 18 of 2013 on Prevention and

Eradication of Forest Destruction and Law No 41 of 1999 on Forestry

Arief Hidayat CU

104 21/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No 20 of 2011 on Flats Arief Hidayat CU 105 33/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No of 1981 on Criminal

Procedural Law

Arief Hidayat CU

106 8/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus

Arief Hidayat CU

107 7/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No 23 of 2014 on Regional Government

Arief Hidayat CU

108 6/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 14 of 2002 on Tax Court Arief Hidayat CU 109 51/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 11 of 2006 on Aceh Government Arief Hidayat CU 110 20/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 11 of 2008 on Information and

Electronic Transactions

Arief Hidayat CU

111 21/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 31 of 1999 jo Law No 20 of 2001 on the Eradication of Corruption

Arief Hidayat CU

112 114/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No 13 of 2003 on Manpower Arief Hidayat CU 113 135/PUU- XIII/2015 Law No of 2015 on the Amendment

Arief Hidayat CU

114 69/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No of 1974 on Marriage Arief Hidayat CU 115 138/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No 39 of 2014 on Plantations Arief Hidayat CU 116 102/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No of 1981 on Criminal

Procedural Law

Arief Hidayat CU

117 111/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No 30 of 2009 on Electricity Arief Hidayat CU 118 130/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No of 1981 on Criminal

Procedural Law

Arief Hidayat CU

119 29/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 16 of 2004 on Attorney General Office of the Republic of Indonesia

Arief Hidayat CU

120 129/PUU-XIII/2015 Law No 41 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No 18 of 2009 on Animal Husbandry and Health

Arief Hidayat CU

121 77/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 14 of 2008 on Public Information Disclosure

Arief Hidayat CU

122 49/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No of 2004 on Settlement of Industrial Relations Disputes

Arief Hidayat CU

123 39/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 42 of 2009 on the Third Amendment of Law No of 1983 on Value Added Tax of Goods and Services, and Sales Tax on Luxury Goods

(15)

124

No No of Case Case Leadership Period Type of Decision 124 95/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 18 of 2003 on Advocates Arief Hidayat CU 125 54/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 10 of 2016 on the Second

Amendment to Law No of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No of 2014 on the Elections of Governor, Regent, and Mayor

Arief Hidayat CU

126 53/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No of 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law No 14 of 1985 on Supreme Court

Arief Hidayat CU

127 71/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No of 2014 on the Elections of Governor, Regent, and Mayor

Arief Hidayat CU

128 85/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No of 1999 on the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition

Arief Hidayat CU

129 15/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No of 2004 on State Treasury Arief Hidayat CU 130 18/PUU-XV/2017 Law No of 2004 on State Treasury Arief Hidayat CU 131 103/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No of 1981 on Criminal

Procedural Law

Arief Hidayat CU

132 97/PUU-XIV/2016 Law No 23 of 2006 on Population Administration as Amended by Law No 24 of 2013

Arief Hidayat CU

133 93/PUU-XV/2017 Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court

Arief Hidayat CU

134 63/PUU-XV/2017 Law No 28 of 2007 on the Third Amendment of Law No of 1983 on General Provisions and Tax Procedures

Anwar Usman CU

135 10/PUU-XV/2017 Law No 29 of 2004 on Medical Practices Anwar Usman CU 136 16/PUU-XVI/2018 Law No of 2018 on the Second

Amendment to Law No 17 of 2014 on MPR, DPR, DPD, and DPRD

Anwar Usman CU

137 1/PUU-XVI/2018 Law No 24 of 2004 on Deposit Insurance Corporation as Amended by Law No of 2009

Anwar Usman CU

138 30/PUU-XVI/2018 Law No of 2017 on General Elections Anwar Usman CU 139 31/PUU-XVI/2018 Law No of 2017 on General Elections Anwar Usman CU 140 13/PUU-XVI/2018 Law No 24 of 2000 on International

Treaties

Anwar Usman CU

(16)

125

Based on Table and Table above, it is noticeable that the conditional clause firstly used by the Constitutional Court in Jimly Asshiddiqie’s Era, through Decision No 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 and 008/PUU-III/20051 In a quo Decision, the Constitutional Court explicitly stated the conditionally constitutional clause in its legal considerations2 The Court states that “if the Water Resources Law is not implemented in accordance with the interpretation as contained in the legal considerations, the Law a quo can be submitted for re-review (conditionally constitutional)”3.

The “experiment” was then continued by the Constitutional Court, namely during the constitutional review of State Budget Law Year 2006, through Decision No 026/PUU-III/20054 In the decision, although it was not explicitly mentioned that the verdict was conditionally, the Court in its verdict states that “Law No 13 of 2005 […] insofar as it concerns the education budget of 9,1% (nine points one percent) as the highest limit, does not have a binding legal force5 It illustrates one of the characteristics of conditionally unconstitutional, considering that there is a condition that should be complied with by the subject (addressat) of the decision Thus, if the conditions are not fulfilled, the Law becomes unconstitutional and does not have a binding legal force

After the two decisions above, it can be seen in Table 2, a decision with a conditional clause, both conditionally constitutional and conditionally unconstitutional are often used by the Court in passing constitutional review decisions The table below illustrates the number of conditional decisions passed in each period of the Constitutional Court leadership period

Table Number of Conditional Decision based on the Constitutional Court Leadership Period No. Leadership Period Term of Office

Number of Conditional Decision Conditionally

Constitutional UnconstitutionalConditionally 1. Jimly Asshiddiqie 19/08/2003 - 19/08/2008

2. Moh Mahfud MD 19/08/2008 - 01/04/2013 39

3. Akil Mochtar 01/04/2013 - 05/10/2013

4. Hamdan Zoelva 05/10/2013 - 07/01/2015 20

5. Arief Hidayat 14/01/2015 - 1/04/2018 48

6. Anwar Usman 2/04/2018 - present

Total 17 123

Source: Prepared by Author, 2019

Table above depicts that, since the leadership of Moh Mahfud MD, by looking at the intensity and quantity of the conditional decisions, it illustrates the shift in the pattern of a conditional decision 1 Constitutional Court Decision No 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 and 008/PUU-III/2005 on the Review of Law No

7 of 2004 on Water Resources against the Constitution, 19 July 2005.

2 Ibid., 495. 3 Ibid.

4 Constitutional Court Decision No 026/PUU-III/2005 on the Review of Law No 13 of 2005 on State Budget Year 2006

against the Constitution, 22 March 2006.

(17)

126

imposed, from conditionally constitutional to conditionally unconstitutional Moreover, compared to the data in Table above, it appears that the intensity of conditionally constitutional decision starts declining since late 2010 A total of 22 conditional decisions handed down by the Constitutional Court in the period of November 2010 to September 2012 are conditionally unconstitutional Only then on 25 September 2012, in the review of Constitutional Court Law 2011, through Decision No 34/ PUU-X/2012, Constitutional Court again used conditionally constitutional decision1 The Decision was the last conditionally constitutional decision imposed by the Constitutional Court Thenceforth, the Court always uses a conditionally unconstitutional clause in every conditional decision

One of the reasons why the Court is not using conditionally constitutional decision has apparently been stated by the Court in Decision No 54/PUU-VI/2008, as follow2:

Considering whereas in several decisions on constitutional review which stated to be contrary to the Constitution (conditionally constitutional), is, in fact, was not immediately obeyed Thus, the verdict was ineffective To uphold the Constitution, both by the implementer and the legislative, the Court argued that the petition a quo has the reason to partly grant the petition by stating that the reviewed provision is conditionally unconstitutional It means that the provision is unconstitutional if the requirements determined by the Court were not fulfilled […]

The Court argument in the legal consideration above explained one of the reasons for the shifting trend is the ineffectiveness of conditionally constitutional decisions, which in practice is not immediately obeyed Moreover, the Court chooses to use the conditionally unconstitutional clause, which essentially means that the provision is unconstitutional if the requirements were not satisfied by the subject of the decision (addressaat) Since that Decision, the Court still use conditionally constitutional decision with lower intensity compared to the conditionally unconstitutional Further, the conditionally constitutional decision was no longer used by the Court, especially since the end of Moh Mahfud MD leadership period

Based on Table above, the most conditional decisions were handed down during Moh Mahfud MD and Arief Hidayat period, by 48 decisions, followed by Hamdan Zoelva (20 decisions), Jimly Asshidiqie (11 decisions), Anwar Usman (7 decisions), and Akil Mochtar (6 decisions) The number of decisions imposed was influenced by the length of the leadership period of the Constitutional Judge, and the dynamics of conditional decision imposition in each era For instance, in the Jimly Asshidiqie era, although his leadership period was quite long (2003-2008), the use of conditional decisions tended to be small It is in fact because, from the first conditional decision imposed in 2005 until the end of his period, the Constitutional Court appears to be still trying to “find” the form of conditional decision That is, the Court still considering whether conditional clauses can be included in legal consideration only or must be stated in the verdict3.

1 In the verdict, the Court states that Article 7A(1) concerning functional position of the Registrar, is constitutional, as long as the phrase “with the pension age of 62-year-old for Registrar, Junior Registrar, and Substitute Registrar See

Constitutional Court Decision No 34/PUU-X/2012 on the Review of Law No of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court, 43-44

2 Constitutional Court Decision No 54/PUU-VI/2008 on the Review of Law No 39 of 2007 on the Amendment of Law No 11 of 1995 on Excise against the Constitution, 13 April 2009

(18)

127

In Moh Mahfud MD era, conditional clause always stated in the verdict, except in one conditionally constitutional decision in 2009, namely Decision No 7/PUU-VII/2009, where the Court stated in the legal consideration that Article 160 of the Criminal Code is conditionally constitutional However, the verdict states that the petition was rejected 1 Since then, every conditional decision handed down by the Court always includes a conditional clause in the verdict Therefore, it shows the shift in the pattern of conditional decision, which previously tended to use conditionally constitutional decision, to conditionally unconstitutional Additionally, there was a shift in the pattern of the inclusion of conditional clauses, from only included in legal consideration, to always be included in the verdict

Interestingly, although the Constitutional Court often to perform judicial activism (through conditional decision) in constitutional review, in late 2018, there are at least two decisions where the Court seems to restrain, namely Decision No 22/PUU-XV/20172 and Decision No 80/XV/20173 In both decisions, the Court states that the reviewed norms are unconstitutional, and order the legislative to adjust or revise the norms within a certain period4 However, in the span of that period, the reviewed norms remain constitutional It illustrates that the Court tends to restrain itself from making a new norm” and choose to place the responsibility to make the norm constitutional to the legislation through a legislative review

Conclusion

To sum up, a conditional decision has begun to be used by the Court since the initial period of the Constitutional Court’s establishment Furthermore, there are dynamics in the conditional decision imposition First, regarding the type of conditional decision used by the Court It shows that there was a change from using conditionally constitutional to conditionally unconstitutional Second, regarding the inclusion of conditional clauses At first, the Court only include the conditional clause in the legal consideration But then, the Court always states the conditional clauses in the verdict It is partly due to the ineffectiveness of conditionally constitutional decision, which apparently is not immediately followed up by the subject of the decisions (addresaat) It can be regarded from the absence of conditionally constitutional decisions used from Akil Mochtar to the Anwar Usman period, especially until the end of 2018 Furthermore, clear limitations in which the Constitutional Court can perform judicial activism through conditional decisions are needed It is intended to prevent the abuse of power and excessive intervention by the Constitutional Court on other branches of state power, especially the legislative, concerning the “formulation of norms” It is needed to strengthen the checks and balances between state institutions

Constitution, 30 April 2008 See page 231.

1 See Constitutional Court Decision No 29/PUU-V/2007 on the Review of Criminal Code against the Constitution, 22

July 2009, 73.

2 Constitutional Court Decision No 22/PUU-XV/2017 on the Review of Law No of 1974 on Marriage against the

Constitution, December 2018.

3 Constitutional Court Decision No 80/PUU-XV/2017 on the Review of Law No 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes and

Levies, 13 December 2018.

4 See e.g Constitutional Court Decision No 80/PUU-XV/2017 on the Review of Law No 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes

(19)

128

References

Asy’ari, Syukri, Meyrinda Rahmawaty Hilipito, and Mohammad Mahrus Ali, “Model and Implementation of Constitutional Court’s Constitutional Review Decision (Case Studies of 2003-2012)” [2013] 10(4) Jurnal Konstitusi 675

Constitutional Court Decision No 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 and 008/PUU-III/2005 on the Review of Law No of 2004 on Water Resources against the Constitution, 19 July 2005

Constitutional Court Decision No 026/PUU-III/2005 on the Review of Law No 13 of 2005 on State Budget Year 2006 against the Constitution, 22 March 2006

Constitutional Court Decision No 54/PUU-VI/2008 on the Review of Law No 39 of 2007 on the Amendment of Law No 11 of 1995 on Excise against the Constitution [14 April 2009]

Constitutional Court Decision No 54/PUU-VI/2008 on the Review of Law No 39 of 2007 on the Amendment of Law No 11 of 1995 on Excise against the Constitution, 13 April 2009

Constitutional Court Decision No 29/PUU-V/2007 on the Review of Criminal Code against the Constitution, 22 July 2009

Constitutional Court Decision No 19/PUU-VII/2010 on the Review of Law No 36 of 2009 on Health against the Constitution [1 November 2011]

Constitutional Court Decision No 48/PUU-IX/2011 on the Review of Law No 35 of 2009 on Narcotics and Law No of 2011 on the Amendment of Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court against the Constitution [18 October 2011]

Constitutional Court Decision No 34/PUU-X/2012 on the Review of Law No of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court

Constitutional Court Decision No 22/PUU-XV/2017 on the Review of Law No of 1974 on Marriage against the Constitution, December 2018

Constitutional Court Decision No 80/PUU-XV/2017 on the Review of Law No 28 of 2009 on Regional Taxes and Levies, 13 December 2018

Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Annual Report of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Secretariat General of the Constitutional Court 2006)

Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Upholding Constitutionalism in the Political Dynamics, Annual Report of the Indonesian Constitutional Court Year 2014 (Secretariat General and Registrar of Constitutional Court 2014)

Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, “Rekapitulasi Perkara Pengujian Undang-Undang” <https://mkri.id/index.php?page=web.RekapPUU> accessed 10 October 2019

Dicey, A.V., Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (Macmillan Press 1971)

El-Muhtaj, Majda, Human Rights in Indonesian Constitution: From the Original 1945 Constitution to the 2002 Amended Constitution (Kencana 2005)

(20)

129

Harjono, Constitution as a Nation’s House: Legal Thought of Dr Harjono, S.H., M.C.L., Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court (Secretariat General and Registrar of the Constitutional Court 2008)

Huda, Ni’matul, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the Idea of Re-Amendment (Rajawali Pers 2008)

Kelsen, Hans, Pure Theory of Law (University California Press 1978)

Kmiec, Keenan D., “The Origin and Current Meanings of Judicial Activism”, [2004] 92(5) California Law Review 1444

Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court

Law No of 2011 on the Amendment of Law No 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court

Nusantara, Abdul Hakim Garuda, “Mahkamah Konstitusi: Perspektif Politik dan Hukum”, Kompas (24 September 2002)

Rahman, Faiz, and Dian Agung Wicaksono, “Existence and Characteristics of Constitutional Court’s Conditional Decision” [2016] 13(2) Jurnal Konstitusi 348

Siahaan, Maruarar, Procedural Law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (Konstitusi Press 2006)

The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia

(21)

Thank you for evaluating AnyBizSoft PDF Splitter.

A watermark is added at the end of each output PDF file

To remove the watermark, you need to purchase the software from

Định dạng
Số trang	21
Dung lượng	414,91 KB