The Constitutional Court (The Court) stated that the Petition from Mohamad Yusuf Hasibuan and Reiza Aribowo related to the review of Act No. 19/2003 about State Enterprises was unaccepted. That was announced in the trial for decision reading for case No. 58/PUU-VI/2008, Friday, (30/1), di Ruang Sidang The Court.

Mohamad Yusuf Hasibuan and Reiza Aribowo, currently university students argued that Article 1 number 11 and number 12, Article 72 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3), Article 73, Article 74 paragraph  (1) and paragraph (2), Article 75, Article 76 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 77, Article 78, Article 79 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3), Article 80 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), and paragraph (3), Article 81, Article 82, Article 83, Article 84, Article 85 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), also Article 86 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Act 19/2003 had caused the restructuring and privatization of State Enterprises made some potential loss among others, due to the their dependency on the supply of goods and/or service produced by the State Enterprises.

The Court, in the decision, stated that the constitutional rights of Mohamad Yusuf Hasibuan and Reiza Aribowo as mentioned in Article 33 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of The 1945 Constitution, which were used as the ground for the Petition, were not damaged at all by the implementation of those articles, both actually and potentially.

On contrary, according to The Court, by the implementation of the articles to be reviewed, their constitutional rights were indeed secured and guaranteed. ”The stipulations in Article 33 of The 1945 Constitution did not refuse the privatization so long as it did not negate the State ownership c.q. the Government to be the main policy maker in branches of production vital for the state and/or involving the lives of the people,” said Constitutional Justice Akil Mokhtar.

Further, The Court believed that Article 33 of The 1945 Constitution did not refuse the idea of competition among business actors either, so long as the competition did not erase the state ownership which included the authority to regulate (regelendaad), governed (bestuursdaad), managed (beheersdaad), and supervised (toezichthoudensdaad) over the branches of production which were vital for the state and/or and involving the lives of the people for the sake of the people s welfare.

Because both the Petitioners and the Petition did not fulfill the requirements of damage as regulated in Article 51 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Act No. 24/2003 about Constitutional Court, then The Court stated Mohamad Yusuf Hasibuan and Reiza Aribowo as not having a legal standing.

Therefore, the Petition of the Petitioners can not be accepted,” announced the Head of the trial, Constitutional Justice A. Mukthie Fadjar. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono)

Photo: Doc. CCRI PR/Wiwik BW

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / CCRI