The Request of Banjar Regent, Khairul Saleh, regarding the trial of Act on Forming Tanah Bumbu Regency and Balangan Regency in South Kalimantan No. 2/2003 was considered unacceptable by the Constitutional Court. That was announced in the Verdict Readout for case 26/PUU-VI/2008, Tuesday (18/11), at the Constitutional Court Room.

Banjar Regent, in his claim, argued that the enactment of Article 6 paragraph (4) of the Act No. 2/2003 causing the loss of Paramasan Village, Sungai Pinang Sub-district. Article 6 paragraph (1) of the Act concerning the borders of Tanah Bumbu area stated, "Tanah Bumbu Regency has borders: a. in the north, bordered by Hampang District, Kelumpang Hulu District, and south Kelumpang District Kotabaru Regency; b. in the east, bordered by Laut strait; c. in the South, bordered by Java Sea; and d. in the west, bordered by Kintab District Tanah Laut Regency, Aranio District and Sungai Pinang District Banjar Regency."

According to the Constitutional Court, by the insertion of Sungai Pinang District into Banjar Regency as regulated in Article 6 paragraph (1) letter d of Act No. 2/2003, then the Petitioners were not damaged by the enactment of the article. ”The fact that there is no loss to the Petitioners by the enactment of article a quo had been delivered by the Petitioners in their improved Petition page 5 number 3.4 which in short saying that Act No. 2/2003 did not mention Paramasan District and Sungai Pinang District as part of the administrative area of Tanah Bumbu Regency, however the two Districts were claimed by Tanah Bumbu Regency as part of the area,” said Constitutional Justice Akil Mochtar in the legal consideration.

Hence, according to the Constitutional Court, the Petitioners damage was not caused by the enactment of Article Pasal 6 paragraph (4) of Act No. 2/2003 as claimed by the Petitioners, but caused by the dispute over area borders which caused the Petitioners to lose part of the area. ”The dispute over area border is not the Courts jurisdiction to settle,” stated Akil.

Furthermore, according to the Constitutional Court, apart from the fact that substance of the Petition was correct or not as mentioned before, even though the Petitioners rights as argued were trully constitutional rights, they are not damaged by the enactment of Act No 2/2003, in fact Article 6 paragraph (4) of Act No. 2/2003 pleaded did not have any relevance with the Petitioners legal standing as a public legal institution, that was the Government of Banjar Government.

“Because the article pleaded is an article about the borders of Tanah Bumbu Regency area and Balangan Regency area in South Kalimantan Province set by the Minister of Interior, then according to the Court, the stipulation within the article a quo is not related at all with the Petitioners legal interest and constitutional rights in casu Banjar Regency Government,” explained Akil.

In other words, there is no damage in the Petitioners constitutional rights by the enactment of Article 6 paragraph (4) of Act No. 2/2003 pleaded for trial, and ideally, the one with loss is South Kalimantan Governor, meanwhile the Petitioners were not the Governor of South Kalimantan nor the Legal Counsel.

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, also stated, “The Court concludes that the Petitioners do not have a legal standing in the judicial review ot the Act a quo, therefore the Petitioners claim have to be declared as unacceptable.” (Luthfi Widagdo Eddono)

Photo: Doc. MK PR/Ardli N
Translated by Yogi Djatnika / MK