Examining Provision On Limitation Of Action Period In State Administrative Court Law
Image


The Constitutional Court holds a judicial review session of article 55 of Law No. 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Court as has been amended with Law No. 9 of 2004 against the 1945 Constitution Tuesday, 20 February 2004 at the court hearing room. Justice Soedarsono chaired the panel of three judges with Prof. H.A.S. Natabaya, S.H., LLM and Maruarar Siahaan, S.H. as members. The petition for the review of the said law was submitted by Drs. H. Endo Suhendo, a retired diplomat with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia.

 

In this petition, numbered 1/PUU-V/2007, the petitioner explained that he has been disadvantaged both morally and materially which resulted in the defect of his professional history because of the Article 55 of the Administrative Court Law which reads: “Claim can only be submitted in ninety days’ time since the stipulation of an institution or state administrative official received or issued.”

 

The disadvantage experienced by the petitioner was caused by mistakes or negligence made by related institutions or state administrative officials namely Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The National Civil Service Agency, and Presidential Institution/Secretariat of State on the letter of stipulation concerning the retirement of the petitioner. The petitioner claimed that concerned state administrative officials have made mistakes in mentioning the date of retirement. Besides, the letter of stipulation does not mention the promotion of dedication rank of the petitioner from IV/b to IV/c as regulated by prevailing laws regarding civil service.

 

During the hearing for examination of revision of the petition, the petitioner argued that the time limit spared for the petitioner is not mentioned in the letter which he received in the end of December 2001. Thus, in this case, the petitioner feels that there is no other legal action that he can take for his constitutional disadvantage.

 

 

The petitioner, then, brought this civil service dispute to State Administrative Court in East Jakarta. Defendant I replied that the civil action taken by the petitioner had exceeded the time limit (limitation of action period) set to bring a civil action to State Administrative Court in Jakarta. The action was rejected on the ground that it had exceeded the limitation of action period as regulated by Article 55 of Law on State Administrative Court.

 

During the hearing for examination of revision of the petition, the petitioner argued that the time limit spared for the petitioner is not mentioned in the letter which he received in the end of December 2001. Thus, in this case, the petitioner feels that there is no other legal action that he can take for his moral, material and immaterial losses.

 

The result of the panel hearing will be brought to the plenary session and the hearing ended at 11.30. (Helmi Kasim)


Monday, February 26, 2007 | 10:40 WIB 339