---

Nico Indra Sakti, deduced his Constitutional right was harmed by the ruling of Act 9/2004 about State Administration Court (UU PTUN).

Based on the advices in the preliminary trial, He performed accounts of revision in his petition. Nico solidified his points by eliminating series of concrete occurrences which seen dominant and too detail. Aside from it, he also fixed his posita. “Petitioner has elaborated concrete occurrence which were harmed by the ruling Article 2 letter e UUPTUN,” he said in Wahidudin Adams-led trial, Tuesday (11/18).  

He also esteemed that he needs to add another touchstone, Article 28J paragraph (1) 1945 Constitution. it was added to resolve dispute between him and the Government.   

 “Applicant has fixed posita so the Article 2 letter e UU PTUN adjudicates not just the implementation, but also the validity of the a quo norms which has been discarded by some officials times over,” he said

In response to, Justice Mohammas Alim brought out some errors in the petition. Some paragraphs in 1945 Constitution also failed to be included in. “Please fix them, it past the due already, but you can hold remand later,” he said.

Previously, Nico 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. (Lulu Hanifah/kun)

---