The Constitutional Court held a trial for Article 50 of Act No. 1/2004 on State Treasury against the 1945 Constitution on Thursday (4/12), at 11.00 in the Court s Panel Room with initial examination as the agenda.

The case registered with No. 46/PUU-VI/2008 was pleaded by Tedjo Bawono (62). The individual Petitioner living in Surabaya City won his claim in Surabaya District Court over the asset which previously claimed by Surabaya Government as the state property in form of a swimming pool (Brantas-ed.).

Article 50 of the Act No. 1/2004 was as follow:
Whichever party was not allowed to do the seizure on:
a. Money or legal bond belong to the state/region which is positioned in Government institutions or in third party;
b. Such money have to be submitted by the third party to the state/region;
c. Moving assets belong to the state/region whether in Government institutions or in third party;
d. Fixed assets and other property rights belong to the state/region;
e. Assets belong to third party which is possessed by the state/region needed to hold the governmental duties.

The Petitioner considered the enactment of the article was against Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The enactment of the article, according to the Petitioner had been against the constitutional norms because it provided protection to State Administration Officers, in this case the Surabaya Mayor, not to obey the Verdict of Surabaya District Court.

Actually according to the Petitioner, Surabaya Court had issued a verdict stating “To punish the Petitionee I (Surabaya Mayor) and Petitionee II (Hari Sasono) altogether to pay compensation fee to the Petitioner as much as Rp. 890.000.000,- which continually grows since June 2000 until the Brantas Swimming Pool can be possessed freely by the Petitioner, as much as Rp.20.000.000 per month,“ 

Besides that, because the object of the claim was under the State/Region rights on property, then according to the article within Act No. 50, such object could not be seized. The Petitioner considered this article as a discriminative act. “Why only individual assets could be seized and not the state’s assets?” Tedjo inquired.

On the claim, a Member of Justice Panel Board Arsyad Sanusi demanded the Petitioner to modify his lawsuit. Arsyad explained that such Act had existed for a long time and if the article reviewed was annulled, all state s assets were possible to be transferred and sold. Meanwhile, another Justice Abdul Mukthie Fadjar advised the Petitioner to be accompanied by a legal counsel. (Andhini Sayu Fauzia)

Photo: Doc. MK PR/Denny Feishal

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / MK