Article 10 of Act 39/2008 on the Ministry of State confirmed and further strengthened the authority of the president discretionary power of the president. It is delivered by Adnan quoted when giving testimony as an expert in a trial testing the Government of the State Ministry of Law on the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (29/2). Case No. 79/PUU-IX/2011 filed by Adi Warman.

"Article a quo only reaffirmed the right of the president to appoint ministers because the actual authority of the president is the government him to establish his own organ. The presidential system does give carte blanche to the president. Not limit the authority of the president because it is a political appointee. This law strengthened the authority of the president’s discretion, "explained Adnan before the panel of judges chaired by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD.

According to Adnan, the petition filed by the Petitioner is absurd, especially if judging from the legal status (legal standing). As a non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that focus on combating corruption, said Adnan, the applicant has no legal standing because of the a quo provision is not related to corruption at all. "Application for judicial review is a bit absurd that the question of legal standing. Moreover, the applicant developed as a non-governmental organization fighting corruption. Nothing in the history of Indonesia, an institution to become a minister, "he explained.

In addition, Adnan reveals no contradiction in the applicant’s request. This is because the applicant requested that the article was deleted because it violates constitutional rights, but basically it regulates the participation to participate in government. "There is a contradiction, on the one hand, the provision violates the constitutional rights because votes can not participate in the government, but on the other hand, ask for a quo article removed. If you want to participate in the government ought article a quo should be maintained. Should they (the Petitioner, ed.) Asked for an interpretation, "he explained.

Expert testimony in the courtroom listening to this Government, the Government also presented the Minister of Justice Amir Syamsudin. Amir reveals the importance of the vice minister of the environment ministry. "The Ministry of Justice and Human Rights shade 43 000 employees and organizationally, consisting of 11 main units of echelon I, 33 regional head, 564 technical implementation, particularly in prisons. So, it felt really needs the presence of a deputy minister, "said Amir.

Amir revealed deputy minister in his ministry includes some scope and breadth of the span of control, including policy formulation, monitoring bureaucratic reform program, coordinating the procurement of goods and services, improvement of the prison system, as well as the assessment and determination of filling the position. "As for Petitioner’s argument to the existence of a waste of deputy ministers, our own using a simple policy which means if all these areas, we no longer use the welcome," he explained.

In the trial, the historian Anhar Gonggong presented.  He revealed the absence of conflict between the Ministry Act and the Constitution 1945. It is also revealed by Judan Arief who argued that the 1945 Constitution should be read not only textually, but also have to go through the philosophy behind these articles. "The deputy minister is not mentioned in the 1945 is analogous to other organs that are not mentioned, such as the secretary-general," he said.

In the main petition, Petitioner argued that the office of deputy ministers may be indicated as the politicization of the civil state employees with the modus operandi of divide within the ranks of the vice minister of the environment and the cronies of the president as president. Verdict in the trial are planned to be held on Wednesday, March 7, 2012. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)