Nico Indra Sakti considered Article 2 letter e Act 9/2004 of State Administration (TUN) is nocuous.

As a Petitioner, he condemned the ruling has barred, hindered, or hampered his rights in performing legal action. He has no rights to challenge State Administration Court’s verdict from Judicial body. His cases started when his petition over South Jakarta District Court Chief was turned down.

“It’s not making sense when my petition was rejected by using reason that the pleaded is TUN official from judicative body (South Jakarta District Court Chief). The decision was not just made by the executive organ but as well as judicative,” he said in the hearing room, Jakarta, Tuesday (11/4).

Moreover, Article 2 letter e of the Act may be misused by the Court to defend illegal TUN official. It also may be harnessed to abolish material truth-seeking attempt.

Article 2 letter e Act of State Administration says:

Excluded from the State Administration verdict is as follows:

e. State Administration Verdict which was issued based on Court investigation as determined by ruling regulation.  

Aside from it, the Petitioner also challenged Article 62 verse (3), (4), (5), and (6) Act of State Administration. According to him, the ruling harmed two-level Court as determined in Article 24 verse (2) and verse (3) 1945 Constitution..

Justices’ Advices

In response to the lawsuit, Justice Wahiduddin Adams suggested the Petitioner to elaborate the case further due to its very likely troubled norm implementation. “It is related to State Administration Court’s verdict, this would be the entrance,” Justice Anwar Usman said.   (Lulu Hanifah/mh/kun)