The Constitutional Court (the Court) held a hearing for judicial review of Law No. 5 Year 2004 concerning Amendment to Law No. 14 Year 1985 concerning the Supreme Court (THE Supreme Court Law), Tuesday (18/09) at 10:00 AM. Western Indonesian Time Zone at the Courtroom of the Court’s Panel on the 4th Floor, with the agenda of Preliminary Examination.

The Petitioner in this case is CV. Sungai Bendera Jaya, represented by its director, Hendriansyah with his Attorneys-In-Fact Tombur Ompu Sunggu, S.H., M.Hum., cs.. In its statement of claims (petitum), the Petitioner  requests the Court to declare Article 45A Paragraph (2) Sub-Paragraph c and Paragraph (3) of the Supreme Court Law contrary to Article 24 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and to declare that such provision does not have any binding legal effect as well as to order the proper promulgation of the decision in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia.

Article 45A Paragraph (2) Sub-Paragraph c states that: ”Cases that are excluded as intended in Paragraph (1) consist of: State Administrative Cases with the object of complaint being decisions of regional with such decisions being applicable in the territory of the region concerned.” Whereas Article 45A Paragraph (3) states: “Applications for Cassation Appeal against cases as intended in Paragraph (2) or applications which do not fulfill formal requirements, shall be declared unacceptable with the stipulation of the head of the court of first instance and the case dossiers thereof shall not be forwarded to the Supreme Court.”

In its petition, the Petitioner argues that as a private legal entity it has been harmed by the application of Article 45A Paragraph (2) Sub-Paragraph c and Paragraph (3) of the Supreme Court Law, which limits the Petitioner’s right to file a cassation appeal against the Decisions of the Jakarta High State Administration Court to the Supreme Court dated May 28, 2007 No.60/B/2007/PT.TUN.JKT and June 28, 2007 No. 59/B/2007/PT.TUN. JKT.

In the hearing attended by its Attorney-In-Fact, Tombur Ompu Sunggu, S.H., M.Hum., the Panel of Justices advised the Petitioner to revise its petition to be more focused, because there were several substantial shortcomings it the petition, one of which being the unclear legal status of the Petitioner.

“We give a maximum period of 14 working days to revise the petition,” stated Natabaya before officially closing the hearing. (Denny Feishal)