Principal Petitioners, Ir. Abdullah Tuasikal and Asis Matulette accompanied by their counsels Andi Muhammad Asrun at the decision reading session for an SKLN case between the Regent and the Central Maluku Parliament against the Minister of Domestic Affairs, Friday (11/3).
Jakarta, MKOnline - Disputes over State Organs’ Authorities (SKLN) between the Regent and Speaker of Central Maluku Parliament against the Minister of Domestic Affairs in case No. 1/SKLN-VIII/2010 ended as the Constitutional Court (The Court) decided that the Petitioeners’ case could not be accepted in a decision reading session on Friday (11/3) morning.
“The Petitioner’s file does not meet the requirements as arranged in Article 61 of Act on the Constitutional Court therefore the petition has to be announced as cannot be accepted. The verdict is to adjudge, to state the Petitioners’ lawsuit cannot be accepted,” so it was read by Mahfud MD as the Chairman of the Plenary session, accompanied by other constitutional justices.
According to The Court, Regional Government according to Article 1 number 2 of Act No. 32/2004 on Regional Government was “The management of governmental affairs by regional government and Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) accordingly to the principle of autonomy and the co-administration duty by the principle of Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia as mentioned within the 1945 Constitution.”
Therefore, based on Article 18 Paragraph (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the 1945 Constitution in accordance to Article 1 number 2 of Act 32/2004, a Regent as the head of Regional Government at Regency level together with the Regional Parliament as a single unit represented the regional government, that it could be considered as State Institutions having the authority mandated by the 1945 Constitution.
Hence, according to The Court, from the subjectum litis side, the Petitioners who are the Regent of Central Maluku and the Speaker of the Central Maluku Parliament were two state organs as mentioned within the 1945 Constitutio and had the authority mandated by the 1945 Constitution, that the Petitioners indeed had a legal standing.
Besides that, the Petitioner argued that the problem being disputed was the settlement borders for regency area which had been set by the Minister of Domestic Affairs based on the Regulation of Minister of Domestic Affairs No. 29/2010 about the border of Western Seram Regency area and Central Maluku Regency of Maluku Province dated April 13, 2010, which was not an authority of the Petitioners provided by the 1945 Constitution.
Therefore, according to The Court, the authority on the objectum litis of the lawsuit was not the authority of the Petitioner which was granted by the 1945 Constitution so it did not belong to the objectum litis in an SKLN case as mentioned in Article 24C Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 61 of Act on Constitutional Court, and Article 2 of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 08/PMK/2006.
The problem brought forth by the Petitioners were the conflict between the Regulation of Minister of Domestic Affairs No. 29 of 2010 about the border for Western Seram area and Central Maluku area of Maluku Province against the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 123/PUU-VII/2009 dated February 2, 2010 which had changed the Attachment of Act No. 40 of 2003 about the Forming of Eastern Seram Regency, Western Seram Regency, and Aru Islands Regency in Maluku Province.
“Considering that the subjectum litis in relation to the objectum litis of the petition are not a subject and an object of a SKLN case, then the Petitioners’ petition does not meet the requirements in Article 61 of the Act on Constitutional Court in conjunction with Article 2 of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 08/PMK/2006, thus the main substance does not need to be further considered,” that was revealed by the Board of Justices. (Nano Tresna A/mh/YDJ)
Friday, March 11, 2011 | 13:55 WIB 266