---

The presence of Deputy Minister was unconstitutional. Therefore, the 1945 Constitution was never ordered a deputy minister in the government structure. At least, this was contrary to Article 17 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.

Thus was stated by the experts presented by Petitioner in case no. 79/PUU-IX/2011. At that time, the experts were Yusril Ihza Mahendra and Margarito. In this case, Petitioner reviewed of Article 10 of Act 39/2008 regarding the Ministry of State.

According to Yusril, the Constitution only ordered the former Act to make laws governing the establishment, alteration, and dissolution of state ministries, rather than on the organization of the state ministries are very detailed as it is now. "Not according to the Constitutional order," he said.

In fact, continued Yusril, in reviewing the constitutionality of the Act on Ministry, the applicant should also submit a formal test. The law makes its own norms that are inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution. "So that does not qualify formal establishment of the legislation," he said.

Although, historically, and if judging from the constitutional convention, the presence of the deputy minister had ever existed. In fact, former President Sukarno had declared the existence of three deputy ministers in the cabinet first. "The deputy minister at that time was a member of the cabinet," said Yusril.

In addition, he continued, in the new order also raises the young minister. "But the task of the young minister was clear," said Yusril. But in practice it is undeniable that besides the presence of a young minister, it gave rise to ‘cold war’ among the ministers who occupy these positions.

Finally, he considered, a vice minister with the job that is not obvious as in the Act on the Ministry of State does not provide benefits for the running of the government."Wasteful and excessive," he said.

Opinion was later confirmed by other experts, Margarito. According to him, if you read the minutes of the discussion session of the 1945 Amendment that time, none of People Representatives Assembly members who intends to form Act on Ministry, let alone form a post as deputy minister. "Nothing at all," he said. "The reason the constitutionality of what the Parliament and Government established norms."

In fact, he continued, MPR PAH I was dreaming of accountability. He concluded that the tested section was unconstitutional. "Vague formulation, no legal certainty," he added.

Meanwhile, there was also Agun Gunanjar Sudarsa as a witness well as an expert. Agun which is also the Chairman of the committee bill presented by the State Ministry of Justice of the Constitutional Assembly to provide information related to the discussion of the birth of the Law on the Ministry of State. 

In a statement, citing the minutes of the hearing, Agun much stated the discussion, formulation of Act on Ministry. In essence, he said, the deputy minister is not a member of the cabinet. In addition, the draft proposals and academic texts, the vice minister did not exist. Deputy Ministers were initiated from the draft DPR. "The existence of a special staff of five people," he explained. However the formulation of specialized staff got pretty loud opposition from the Government.

For the next session will be held on Tuesday (24 / 1) at 11.00 am, in the courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Its plan, the Assembly will present three ministers to listen to his statement, the Minister of Administrative Reforms, Minister of State Secretary and Minister for Justice and Human Rights. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)

---