---

Eleven of ad hoc judges scattered throughout Indonesia invoking judicial Law Number 5 Year 2014 concerning Civil Administrative State to the Constitutional Court . The judges ad hoc judge of Article 122 paragraph e of the discriminatory law .

One of the Principal Applicant Gazalba Saleh , ad hoc corruption judge Surabaya Court explained the main points of the petition in front of the panel of judges led by Deputy Chief Justice Arief Hidayat . According to him , the State Civil Administrative Law imperfect because the substance of which is set with respect to the civilian state apparatus within the executive domain , whereas ad hoc judges included in the judicial domain and is set in the Law on Judicial Power .

Furthermore , in the article , not an ad hoc judges including state officials . The impact , according to the Applicant , any inspection process and product specific court ruling that the panel of judges comprised of ad hoc judges be illegal and null and void because it does not have the legitimacy and legality of the authority to examine and try the case .

" Another consequence is that if a judge ad hoc receiving gratification from the litigants , the ad hoc judges are not required to report because it was not included in the state officials , " said Gazalba in the trial of the case number 32/PUU-XII/2014 on Monday ( 7/4 ) .

Further, the Applicant added , the institutional existence of ad hoc judges are conditio sine qua non ( indispensable condition ) to the legal requirements and consequences of the establishment of special courts as provided in Article 24A paragraph ( 5 ) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 25 of Law no. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power .

" Position judges are state officials without distinction of origin or charging his recruitment , but based on its function as the executor of judicial power , " he said .

Article 122 paragraph e of Law No. 5 of 2014 reads :

State officials referred to in Article 121 , namely : ( e ) Chairman , vice- chairman , chairman and young justices on the Supreme Court as well as the chairman , vice chairman , and the judge in all judicial bodies except judges ad hoc .

Therefore , Petitioner asks the Court declared Article 122 paragraph e of Administrative Law Civil State , particularly the phrase " unless the judge ad hoc " contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal force . The applicant also requested the Court stated ad hoc judges are state officials in all judicial bodies under the Supreme Court .

Judge advice

In response to the petition, the panel judges advised the applicant to fix formatting application in accordance Court Rules. In addition, the applicant also asked to strengthen the rationale for and repair the petition . "Posita should be described carefully and deeply to explain the basic reason why the clause was contrary to the 1945 Constitution could be the reasons for that are philosophical or academic reasons," said Arief. ( Lulu Hanifa / mh )

---