Thursday, 25 January 2007 at 10.00 am Constitutional Court held court hearing again on the dispute of state institution authority filed by Regional House of Representative (DPRD) of Poso Regency, Central Sulawesi against the Governor of Central Sulawesi Province as the defendant and the President of the Republic of Indonesia c.q. Minister of Home Affairs as related third party at Constitutional Court building. At this time the court hearing is about examining the revised petition.

In the first previous court hearing of the petition of case number 027/SKLN-IV/2006, the legal counselor of the petitioner, H. Achmad Michdan, S.H. explained that Regional House of Representative (DPRD) Poso Regency judged the Governor of Central Sulawesi whom has proposed and approved and also inaugurated  the selected Regent and Deputy Regent without the process of Final DPRD meeting session. The Governor was being judged that he has done the action exceeded his authority and against to the stipulation of Article 42 paragraph (1) letter d and j of Law number 32/2004 on Regional Government.

Michdan said, “ We also considered the Governor of Central Sulawesi has neglected people’s aspiration in the process of democratization and didn’t respect the law because he has inaugurated the Regent and Deputy Regent without the High Court Decision of Central Sulawesi. “

Upon that petition, the chairman of Justice Panel, Prof. H.A. Mukhtie Fadjar, S.H.,MS. asked the petitioner to recheck the Constitutional Court authority on adjudicating the dispute of state institution authority which the authority given by 1945 Constitution.”  This Professor of Brawijaya University said, “ The petitioner has to be able to explain in his petition whether this authority of DPRD is given by the 1945 Constitution. Afterwards, whether the petitioner is in the category of state institution which has the authority given by 1945 Constitution.”

The member of the Justice Panel, H. Achmad Roestandi, S.H. clarified   Prof. Mukhtie’s statement to remind the petitioner to explain clearer in his petition in the matter of his objectum litis and subjectum litis (the object and subject of the dispute).

Meanwhile, the member of the Panel, I Dewa Gede Palguna, S.H.,M.H. asked the petitioner to enclose the record evidence of  DPRD plenary session of Poso Regency which clarified that DPRD decided to file the petition of the dispute of state institution authority to Constitutional Court. Palguna said, “We don’t want to see later that there will be members of DPRD who say that they never file the petition to Constitutional Court, because the chairman of DPRD just the spokesman who represent the institution, not as the head of DPRD who can directly take action on behalf of the institution.”

The Revised Petition

In the court hearing of the revised petition, the legal counselor of the petitioner explained that the petitioner has added the clarification about objectum litis on the authority of ratification and implementation  of  inaugurating the candidate of the selected Regent/Deputy Regent. Instead of that the petitioner hasn’t enclosed the record evidence of the DPRD Plenary Meeting which formally represent all the members of DPRD of Poso Regency to file the petition to Constitutional Court.

On that occasion, the Chairman of DPRD of Poso Regency, Drs. S. Pelima explained the chronology of  the emergence of Regional Election conflict in Poso which began by the complaint of  a group of people who were not satisfied by the completion of Regional Election in Poso which was pointed out not valid. To respond this aspiration, the Regional House of Representative of Poso in the coordination meeting on 22 June 2006 agreed to refuse the selected Regent/Deputy Regent because of the unfinished conflict.

Upon the explanation of the petitioner, Constitutional Justice Palguna asked written information of the principal petitioner and also asked the Registrar to keep that chronology of information as the whole part of the petition. Meanwhile Constitutional Justice Roestandi said that there are three disputes in this case i.e dispute of general election, state administration, and possibly there is dispute of state institution authority which become the authority of Constitutional Court to be considered.

Before closing the court hearing, the chairman of the Panel, Mukthie Fadjar legalized the enclosed evidences of the petitioner. (Donny Y)