Four Commissioners from Information Commission, namely John Fresly, Rumadi, Mahyudin Yusdar and Mohammad Dawam filed a petition of judicial review on Act Public Information. A trial of this case was held on Monday (10/11) at the Plenary Room of the Constitutional Court (MK). Veri Junaidi as the attorney of the Petitioners submit Article 9 paragraph (2), paragraph (3), (4) and (5) of the Act Public Information has violated the mandate of Article 24 paragraph (1) and Article 28F of the Act 1945.

Starting the principal explanation petition Case No. 116/PUU-XII/2014, Veri said there was actually a group of Applicant. The first group consisted of 22 members of the commissioners in the Central Information Commission and the Provincial Information Commission. The second group is band of Indonesian citizens as taxpayers. The petitioners feel they have the right to communicate and obtain information to develop personal and social environment as well as the right to seek, obtain, possess, store, process, and convey information by using all available channels. It is constitutionally mandated by Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution.

Constitutional rights of the Applicant shall be deemed to have been violated by the presence of the application of Article 29 paragraph (2), paragraph (3), (4), and (5) Freedom of Information Law. The fourth paragraph basically states Secretariat conducted by the Central Information Commission established by the Government and membership secretary for communications and informatics. The intervention of the government also enacted the Information Commission at the provincial, district, or city level.

Veri explain these provisions has led to the commissioners of the Information Commission cannot carry out its duties and powers to the optimum measure in resolving the dispute information. Especially, disputes involving government information and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.

The rules according to the Petitioners, also cause dependence or helplessness in terms of budgeting or tagging and Information Commission Secretariat building models at other institutions. In the end, the applicant accused the rule has implications for the difficulty of implementation of managerial and supervisory employees in the Information Commission.

"The losses suffered by the Petitioner 23 (Applicant individual, red) which delays the process of dispute resolution submitted by the applicant to the Information Commission. Second, the non-fulfillment of a sense of justice for the information due to some independent commissions to resolve disputed information. Third, it is difficult fulfillment of the right to information for the applicant. That the birth of the article and phrases in a statute quo has been very disturbing and thus inhibit the activity of Applicant 1 so that Applicant 23 was hindered in delivering justice for dispute resolution information or to obtain fair treatment in gaining information as mandated by the 1945 Constitution. That is based on the description above, it is clear the Applicant has met the quality and capacity as Applicant of Judicial review on Act to the Constitution of 1945, "said Veri towards a panel of Justices chaired by Constitutional Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi.

The applicant argued that in accordance with Article 23 Freedom of Information Law, the Central Information Commission should be an independent institution and serves execute the law. In addition, the regulations implementing the Act KIP set of technical guidelines and service standards of public information public information must resolve disputes through mediation and / or adjudication litigation. The principle of independence is important so that the Information Commission is able to provide justice to the parties when resolving disputes.  (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/kun)