The Constitutional Court held a hearing in the judicial review on Law No. 5 of 2004 on Amendments to Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, on Tuesday (18/09) at 11.00 West Indonesia Time, with an agenda for the Examination of the Revised Petition. The petitioner in this case is CV. Sungai Bendera Jaya, which is represented by its director, Hendriansyah, and his attorneys, Tombur Ompu Sunggu, S.H., M.Hum., and associates.

In the petition, the petitioner requested the Constitutional Court to declare that Article 45A paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (c) and Paragraph (3) of the Supreme Court Law are contradictory to Article 24 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and that those provisions do not have binding legal force, as well as to order the proper publication of the decision in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia.

Article 45A paragraph (2) sub-paragraph © reads: The excluded cases as intended in paragraph (1) shall include: State Administration Cases in which the objects of the lawsuits are decisions of regional government officials which are applicable only in the relevant regions. Whereas Article 45A paragraph (3) stipulates that: Appeals to the Supreme Court against cases as intended in paragraph (2) or appeals to the Supreme Court which fail to meet the formal requirements shall be refused with a stipulation of the head of court of the first instance and the case dossiers shall not be sent to the Supreme Court.

In the hearing held for examining the revised petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna raised a question about the right of individual person (natuurlijke persoon) or the right of incorporated person or legal entity (recht persoon), because the petitioner claimed that he has the right of individual person, while the article petitioned for judicial review is an article providing for a legal entity, namely provision on the authorities of the Supreme Court. However, the petitioner remained firm on his argument by saying that it is his constitutional right being violated. Wi8th regard to the revision, the Panel of Constitutional Justices said that it can accept the petition and endorse the list of evidence presented by the petitioner. (Denny Feishal)