The Constitutional Court (The Court) announced that the Petition of Bernard Samuel Sumarauw related to the review of Act No. 3/1992 about Workers Social Security (Act on WSS) was unacceptable. That was stipulated in the trial for decision reading for case No. 47/PUU-VI/2008, Wednesday (28/1), at The Court s Main Room.

Bernard filed a material review on Article 1 paragraph (1) and paragraph  (2), Article 3 paragraph (2), Article 4 paragraph (1) and paragraph  (2), Article 6 paragraph (1), Article 7 paragraph (1), Article 17, Article 22 paragraph (1), and Article 25 paragraph (2) of Act on WSS, due to the rights on his intellectual property (private rights) being taken over by the Act.

According to The Court, had it been true that Bernard experienced some loss, the loss had no connection at all with the stipulations in Act on WSS, which was claimed by the Petitioner as against Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28I paragraph (2), and Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Besides that, The Court saw that Bernard s constitutional rights as mentioned in Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), Article 28H paragraph (3) and (4), Article 28I paragraph (2), and Article 28J paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, used as the ground for the review, was not damaged by the existence of the stipulations within the articles under review since there was not a causality relation (causal verband) between the constitutional rights mentioned and the stipulation within the act under review.

“The damaged experienced by the Petitioner is a private loss which is under other courts jurisdiction; and on which The Court can not examine,” explained Constitutional Justice Akil Mochtar.

Therefore, “The Petitioner does not fulfil the requirement for a legal standing to file a lawsuit a quo”, emphasized the Head of the trial, A. Mukthie Fadjar. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono)

Photo: Doc. of CCRI PR/Wiwik BW

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / CCRI