Saldi Isra's Jest: If You've Interned at the MK, Why Challenge the MK Now? What's Up With That?

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Constitutional Court Justice Saldi Isra made a jest when two students named Adam Imam Hamdana and Wianda Julita Maharani submitted a judicial review application for the Constitutional Court Law after previously interning at the court.

“Have you indeed interned at the Constitutional Court before?” Saldi asked before the petitioners explained their reasons for the application on Monday (27/4/2026).

“Yes, Your Honour. That’s correct (both of us have interned at the MK),” Adam replied.

“If you’ve already interned at the Constitutional Court, why are you challenging the Constitutional Court? What’s up with that? Right?” Saldi quipped.

Meanwhile, Saldi continued to lead the hearing with the agenda of listening to the substance of the application from Adam and Wianda.

In the hearing, Adam stated that they were challenging the provisions in the Constitutional Court Law that do not regulate time limits for case resolutions.

According to them, the absence of time limits contradicts the principle of the rule of law due to the lack of clear restrictions.

In addition, the two petitioners argued that the absence of time limitations could lead to delayed justice (justice delayed), which ultimately may violate constitutional rights as guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution.

“We argue that the regulation of the aforementioned article is also not accompanied by clear transparency. Thus, the lack of such transparency causes ambiguity and confusion for us,” Adam said.

As a comparison, Adam mentioned that several constitutional courts in other countries, such as South Korea, France, and Togo, have explicitly regulated time limits for case resolutions.

They are challenging the provisions in Part Six, including the phrase “examination of the trial” in Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court, as well as the phrase “determination” in Article 48A of Law Number 8 of 2011 and the phrase “decision” in Article 56 of Law Number 24 of 2003.

This challenge is brought against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, particularly Article 1 paragraph (3) on the principle of the rule of law, Article 24 paragraph (1) on independent judicial power, and Article 28D paragraph (1) which guarantees legal certainty that is fair and equality before the law.