---

Applicant accompanied by Applicant’s Attorney delivers petition points at preliminary session on Act of Electricity, on Tuesday (29/9) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court holds preliminary judicial review session on Act Number 30 Year 2009 of Electricity (Undang-Undang Ketenagalistrikan), on Tuesday (29/9) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati leads Justice Panel which examines Case Number 111/PUU-XIII/2015. The Applicant is Chairman of PLN Workers Union Adri and its Secretary General Eko Sumantri. They review Article 10 (2), Article 16 (1), Article 33 (1), Article 34 (5), and Article 56 (2) Act of Electricity.  

The Applicant argues Articles aforementioned cause private sectors control public needs, either national company, multinational company, or individuals. The Applicant further says that the State could possibly lose its rights on electricity.  

According to the Applicant, the substance of Article 10 (2), Article 33 (1), Article 34 (5), and Article 56 (2) Act a quo regulates on unbundling electrical management by implementing healthy business principles, different electricity tariff, and giving chance for private sectors. The Applicant assesses such provision is a repetition of Article 8 (2), Article 16, Article 17 (3), and Article 68 Act Number 20 Year 2002 of Electricity which previously have been annulled by the Constitutional Court in Court Verdict No. 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003.

Moreover, the Applicant argues the phrase ‘healthy business principles’ (‘prinsip usaha sehat’) in Article 33 (1) and the phrase ‘differently’ (‘secara berbeda’) in Article 34 (5) Act of Electricity indicate the intention of agreement between business entities in determining electricity tariff. Based on such argumentation, the Applicant considers that there are some variables which affect electricity tariff, such as profit for business entities and cartelization potential.

Responding Applicant’s arguments, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna says Applicant’s petition is still unclear. “Regarding your legal standing, do you want to file petition as Indonesian individual citizen or as workers union? That is cause obscurity in your petition,” said Palguna.

Moreover, Palguna assesses petition editorial shall be revised. He advises the Applicant to learn from other petitions which uploaded in Court website.

Moreover, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati assesses the petition concerns on norm implementation, rather than norm contradiction. “So, you should formulate your argument in petition argumentations that the Articles filed considered contrary to the 1945 Constitution and violate your constitutional rights,” said Indrati.

“I recognize that your petition tries to contrast old regulation with the new one. It will be useless unless you explain the norm in Articles reviewed contrary to the Constitution. Arguments in the petition is quite long, but it doesn’t explain the contradictory between the norm with the Constitution,” said Indrati. (Nano Tresna Arfana/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

 

---