The Constitutional Court Calls The National Electricity General Plan Determined By The Government The Results Of The DPR's Consideration

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) decided that the General Plan for National Electricity (RUKN) was prepared based on national energy policy and was determined by the central government after receiving consideration from the DPR RI.

This is the new meaning of the Constitutional Court against Article 7 paragraph (1) in Article 42 number 5 of the Attachment to Law Number 6 of 2023 concerning Job Creation (UU 6/2023), because the Court granted part of the request for judicial review of Case Number 39/PUU-XXI/2023 which was requested by a number of unions in the energy sector.

"The verdict, adjudicate, grant the petitioners' petition in part," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo reading out the verdict in the Plenary Session Room of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Friday, November 29, which was confiscated by Antara.

Article 7 paragraph (1) in Article 42 number 5 of Law 6/2023 is an amendment to Article 7 of Law Number 30 of 2009 concerning Electricity (UU 30/2009). In essence, this change eliminates the authority of the DPR in drafting the RUKN.

Initially, Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law 30/2009 stipulated that the RUKN was prepared based on national energy policy and was determined by the government after consulting with the DPR RI.

Then, in Article 7 paragraph (1) in Article 42 number 5 of Law 6/2023, the provisions are changed to, 'RUKN is prepared based on national energy policy and determined by the central government.'

The Constitutional Court explained that RUKN is a plan to develop an electricity supply system that includes the field of generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity needed to meet the needs of electricity.

According to the Constitutional Court, the abolition of the phrase 'after consulting with the DPR RI' indicates that the role of the government has become very central in the RUKN. In fact, electricity as one of the production branches that controls the lives of many people must be controlled by the state.

The Constitutional Court believes that the phrase controlled by the state contains a higher or wider understanding than the ownership in the concept of civil law. In this case, the conception of mastery by the state is a public legal conception related to the principles of people's sovereignty.

"In the context of the principle of people's sovereignty, it is the people who are recognized as the sources, owners, and at the same time the highest holders of power in state life," said Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Saldi Isra reading out the legal considerations of the Court.

Basically, according to the Court, the norm of Article 7 paragraph (1) in Article 42 number 5 of Law 6/2023 is part of the function of regulation by the state. The function of regulation by the state, said the Constitutional Court, is carried out through the authority of legislation by the DPR together with the government and regulations by the government.

Furthermore, Saldi said, "As a manifestation of people's sovereignty in managing electricity as one of the production branches that controls the lives of many people that must be controlled by the state, the obligation to involve the DPR is increasingly inevitable."

In addition, the Constitutional Court considers that the involvement of the DPR in the RUKN is not in the form of approval, but rather consideration. The Constitutional Court views that the process for obtaining considerations is simpler than the process of obtaining approval.

Based on these considerations, the Constitutional Court stated that Article 7 paragraph (1) in Article 42 number 5 of the Attachment to Law 6/2023 contradicts the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted: The RUKN was prepared based on the national energy policy and was determined by the central government after receiving consideration from the DPR RI.'

This case was requested by the State Electricity Company (Persero) Workers Union, the Association of Indonesian Power Employees, the Java-Bali Generation PT Workers Union, the Federation of Chemical, Energy, and Mining Workers Unions throughout Indonesia, the Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mining, Oil, Natural Gas, and General Workers, the Indonesian Muslim Workers Brotherhood 98, the Federation of Reform Tourism Workers Unions, the Federation of Textile Workers Unions, Sandang, and the Skin of All-Indonesian Workers Unions, Aqua Group Workers Unions, and the Federation of Indonesian Workers Unions.