Petitionerâs expert Prof. Yuliandri (Dean of Law Faculty of Andalas University) when explaining based on his expertise on the session of the review of Act on Ombudsman, Thursday (3/3).
Jakarta, MKOnline - The follow-up session for the review of Act No. 37 of 2008 about Indonesian Ombudsman, also the Act No. 25 of 2009 about Public Service was conducted on Thursday (3/3), at the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court (The Court). The case registered in the Registrar Office of The Court with number 62/PUU-VIII/2010 was pleaded by Ilham Arief Sirajuddin and others.
In the session scheduled to hear information from the Government, the Parliament and witnesses/experts from Petitioner, Subandrio representing the Government informed that the petition was unreasonable and incorrect. The Stipulation Article 46 paragraph (1) and (2) also Article 43 paragraph (1) and (2, continued Subandrio, indeed provided a clear and strong picture of what was meant by Ombudsman, also the limitation of work, functions and authorities. “Therefore according to the Government, the stipulation a quo is completely not related to the problem of constitutionality in the implementation of an act.” He said.
The Petitioner presented five experts to support the arguments of the main petition, among others Mintartoha, Amir Binharudin, Yuliandri, Saldi Isra and Fajrul Falaakh. In his testimonial, an Expert in Constitutional Law Saldi Isra explained that the review did not question about the Ombudsman’s existence, but more to the articles which negated the regional ombudsman. Saldi pointed out that the stipulation in Article 46 paragraph (1) and (2) did not only affect on the changing of all regional ombudsman, but also the requirement to erase the words “ombudsman” used by other institutions.
“The stipulation a quo have injured the meaning of regional autonomy. The prohibition to use the name ombudsman gave an impact on the raising of other names. With the prohibition through the regulation a quo, indirectly, it has shifted from Article 18 paragraph (2) and (5) of the 1945 Constitution. In the understanding of the Expert, people’s involvement to supervise the management of government is not an authority in the hand of Central Government,” he explained.
Another Petitioner’s expert, Amir Binharuddin pointed out that the presence of ombudsman whether nationally or regionally was very important in increasing the accountability of state administration and the quality of public services. “Different from private institution, public service carried out by government many of them is monopoly in nature, the monopoly characteristics caused many public services provided by the government are lack in quality also allows many abusive practices for the holders of public services,” he explained.
Besides that, continued Binharudin, the people who were dissatisfied could only complain and not do anything else, Biharudin explained that the existence of institutions like ombudsman could help people to distribute complaints on the government services in order to make it more effective. “Even though the state guarantees the freedom of speech, not all people have the nerve to express their complaints on the public services provided by public service institutions. People like these, needs an institution which is easy, cheap and accessible like ombudsman so that they could deliver their complaints,” he explained.
Meanwhile, a Professor in Constitutional Law from Andalas University, Yuliandri informed about the formulation of the stipulation in Article 46 paragraph (1) and (2) basically had negated the norms of other law, the regulations on the existence of names. In relation with the definition of ombudsman, then basically it had created a law uncertainty including Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution. “If we study further the stipulation of the article is retroactive in principle. Ombudsman institutions have existed before the Act a quo. The implementation of a stipulation to create a lawful country is not supposed to contain a retroactive principle because basically all legal foundation is supposed to be perspective,” he explained.
The stipulation in the article a quo, continued Yuliandri, had caused a masked change in terms of that two years after the Act was put into force, the name Ombudsman used by other institutions became illegal. “Then this is what I categorize as masked change which actually the existing Ombudsman actively help organizing good government in their regions,” he said (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/YDJ)
Monday, March 07, 2011 | 14:58 WIB 335