The Constitutional Court (The Court) announced that the Petition of Tedjo Bawono related to the review of Act No. 1/2004 about State Treasury (Act on State Treasury) was unacceptable. That was announced in the trial for decision reading on case No. 46/PUU-VI/2008, Wednesday (28/1), at The Court Plenary Room.

Tedjo Bawono questioned Article 50 Act on State Treasury which was used as the ground for Surabaya Mayor refusal to pay compensation fee to him. The article stated: ”Whichever party is not allowed to seize: a. money or bonds belong to the state/region which is on a government institution or a third party; b. money submitted by a third party to the state/region; c. moveable properties belong to the state/region which are on a government institution or a third party; d. fixed assets and other rights on property belong to the state/region; e. personal property of a third party possessed by the state/region needed to hold governmental duties.”

According to The Court, had it been true that there was a loss experienced by Tedjo caused by the unfulfilment of the execution related to the compensation, the problem was related to the implementation of law. “Therefore, the loss a quo does not have any connection with the constitutionality of the norms under review as argued by the Petitioner having violated the stipulations in Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2), Article 28I paragraph (2) and paragraph (4) of The 1945 Constitution,” explained Constitutional Justice Maruarar Siahaan.

Further, The Court announced that Tedjo s constitutional rights as mentioned in Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2), Article 28I paragraph (2) and paragraph (4) of The 1945 Constitution, used as the ground for the review, were not damaged by the existence of the stipulations in Article 50 of the act.  “There is no causal relation between the constitutional rights as mentioned within the articles of The 1945 Constitution and the stipulations within the act being reviewed,” explained Maruarar.

Consequently, The Court concluded, “The Petitioner does not meet the requirement stipulated in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Act on Constitutional Court,” announced the Head of the trial, A. Mukthie Fadjar, as he read the Conclusion for The Decision. As the result, the petition from Tedjo Bawono could not be accepted. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono)

Photo: Doc. of CCRI PR/Wiwik BW

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / CCRI