Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Christina Desy, Agus Sahbani
Aiming to ensure the conformity of Indonesian laws with the 1945 Constitution, Muhammadiyah, an Islamic mass organization, has taken on to make applications for judicial review of any law which is deemed to contravene the 1945 Constitution. This movement known as the ‘constitutional jihad’, began a few years ago.One recent move was a judicial review petition on Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources (“Water Resources Law”). The Constitutional Court granted Muhammadiyah’s request, an annulled the Water Resources Law under Decision No. 85/PUU-XII/2013 handed down in February.
Maintaining its momentum, Muhammadiyah recently submitted another judicial review application on three laws, namely Law No. 24 of 1999 on Foreign Exchange and Exchange Rate System (“Foreign Exchange Law”), Law No. 25 of 2007 on Investment (“Investment Law”), and Law No. 30 of 2009 on Electricity (“Electricity Law”).
Several public figures and institutions are also supporting this recent move by Muhammadiyah, such as Professor Sri Edi Swasono, Marwan Batubara, Fahmi Idris, Ichsanuddin Noorsy, Workers Union of State Electricity Company (PLN), and Anti-Debt Coalition.
Although submitted separately, all three petitions are formulated around the same basis, which is a violation against the nation’s objectives under the preamble as well as Article 33 of 1945 Constitution. Specifically, Professor Edi Swasono, an economics expert, believes that the substances of those laws threaten Indonesia’s political and economic sovereignty.
In response to Mr. Swasono’s views, Ichsanuddin Noorsy, a former member of the House of Representatives, has stated that the Foreign Exchange Law has caused an unstable rupiah rate due to its free floating rate system. Under this system, the rupiah’s exchange rate is no longer determined by the government, but by market forces.
Adding further, Mr. Noorsy explained that Foreign Exchange Law also enables the free use of foreign exchange. This situation is further exasperated by Article 8 of the Investment Law which allows investors to transfer and repatriate their assets in foreign currency.
“These mechanisms result in a failure to maintain price stability as well as a wider social and economic gap amongst Indonesian people thus violating the mandates of our constitution,” argues Mr. Noorsy.
The judicial review of the Electricity Law was filed on the basis it enables private business entities to manage electricity. According to Marwan Batubara, the law reduces PLN’s monopoly over electricity management which may result in harm to Indonesia’s electricity power industry.
(hot/kc)
Christina Desy, Agus Sahbani
Aiming to ensure the conformity of Indonesian laws with the 1945 Constitution, Muhammadiyah, an Islamic mass organization, has taken on to make applications for judicial review of any law which is deemed to contravene the 1945 Constitution. This movement known as the ‘constitutional jihad’, began a few years ago.One recent move was a judicial review petition on Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources (“Water Resources Law”). The Constitutional Court granted Muhammadiyah’s request, an annulled the Water Resources Law under Decision No. 85/PUU-XII/2013 handed down in February.
Maintaining its momentum, Muhammadiyah recently submitted another judicial review application on three laws, namely Law No. 24 of 1999 on Foreign Exchange and Exchange Rate System (“Foreign Exchange Law”), Law No. 25 of 2007 on Investment (“Investment Law”), and Law No. 30 of 2009 on Electricity (“Electricity Law”).
Several public figures and institutions are also supporting this recent move by Muhammadiyah, such as Professor Sri Edi Swasono, Marwan Batubara, Fahmi Idris, Ichsanuddin Noorsy, Workers Union of State Electricity Company (PLN), and Anti-Debt Coalition.
Although submitted separately, all three petitions are formulated around the same basis, which is a violation against the nation’s objectives under the preamble as well as Article 33 of 1945 Constitution. Specifically, Professor Edi Swasono, an economics expert, believes that the substances of those laws threaten Indonesia’s political and economic sovereignty.
In response to Mr. Swasono’s views, Ichsanuddin Noorsy, a former member of the House of Representatives, has stated that the Foreign Exchange Law has caused an unstable rupiah rate due to its free floating rate system. Under this system, the rupiah’s exchange rate is no longer determined by the government, but by market forces.
Adding further, Mr. Noorsy explained that Foreign Exchange Law also enables the free use of foreign exchange. This situation is further exasperated by Article 8 of the Investment Law which allows investors to transfer and repatriate their assets in foreign currency.
“These mechanisms result in a failure to maintain price stability as well as a wider social and economic gap amongst Indonesian people thus violating the mandates of our constitution,” argues Mr. Noorsy.
The judicial review of the Electricity Law was filed on the basis it enables private business entities to manage electricity. According to Marwan Batubara, the law reduces PLN’s monopoly over electricity management which may result in harm to Indonesia’s electricity power industry.
(hot/kc)