Applicant’s Attorney Bambang Suroso left the room after petition revision session on Act of Regional Elections on Wednesday (24/6) at the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

Applicant revises petition on resignation regulation for civil servants which stipulated in Act Number 8 Year 2015 of Act Amendment No 1 Year 2015 of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Stipulation No. 1 Year 2014 of Governor, Regent, and Mayor Election Enacted to Act (Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 2015 tentang Perubahan Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2015 tentang Penetapan Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2014 tentang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati, dan Walikota Menjadi Undang-Undang –UU Pilkada) –later known as Act of Regional Elections. One of the revisions was adding new Applicant.

Applicant’s Attorney Bambang Suroso said he had added Applicant who had legal standing to file this petition. Applicant added was an individual who willing to run Gorontalo Regency Regional Head candidacy. However, Suroso didn’t submit the name or any other identities from Applicant added.

Moreover, Suroso again asserted the petition which registered with Case Number 70/PUU-XIII/2015. Basically, the Applicant felt their constitutional rights violated by the enactment of Article 7 letter t Act of Regional Elections.

Article 7 letter t Act of Regional Election stated Indonesian citizens who able to be Governor and Deputy Governor Candidates, Regent and Vice Regent Candidates, and Mayor and Vice Mayor Candidates were eligible among others resigning from Indonesian Military (Tentara Nasional Indonesia –TNI) officers, Indonesian National Police (Kepolisian Republik Indonesia –Polri) officers and Civil Servants (Pegawai Negeri Sipil –PNS) since registering as candidates

The Applicant felt violated because they should resign from their position as civil servant to register their regional head candidacy. According to the Applicant, Article 7 letter t Act of Regional Elections had caused legal uncertainty, as noted in Fourth Paragraph of the Preamble, Article 1 (1), (2), and (3) the 1945 Constitution, as well as removing Applicant’s constitutional rights to be equally treated before the law as noted in Article 28D (1) the 1945 Constitution.  

“Article 7 letter t Act Number 8 Year 2015 is contrary to Article 28D (3) the 1945 Constitution which stated each citizens entitled to equal chance in governance. Article 7 letter t Act Number 8 Year 2015 had violated constitutional rights, both directly and indirectly, to the Applicant as citizens and their colleagues and families. The right loss on granting procedural and substantial justice as well as lack of guarantee on clarity, justice and beneficial principle,” Suroso affirmed in front of Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman on Wednesday (24/6).

 Responding the explanation, Anwar said Justice Panel would report the result of this session to the Justices’ Consultative Meeting (Rapat Permusyawaratan Hakim –RPH) to adjudicate the court proceedings. Moreover, Anwar validated four evidences filed by the Applicant. “Well, thank you. Applicant file P-1 evidence to P-4 evidence. It had been verified and declared valid,” said him while knocking the hammer for closing the session. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/Prasetyo Adi N)