---

The atmosphere of verdict announcement session on Act of State Administrative Courts, on Monday (16/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie  

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) declares reject Jack Lourens Vellentino’s petition on Act of of State Administrative Courts (UU PTUN). According to the Court, administrative lawsuit time limit provision as regulated in Article 55 Act a quo has provided legal certainty and doesn’t cause discrimination.

“Judicial verdict, adjudicates declares reject Applicant’s provision petition. In petition points, the Court declares reject Applicant’s petition in its entirely,” asserted Chief Justice Arief Hidayat at verdict announcement session on Monday (16/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.

As known, Jack Lourens Vellentino is a former functional prosecutor of North Maluku High Prosecutor Office (Kejaksaan Tinggi Maluku Utara).

Previously, the Applicant filed petition on Article 55 Act of State Administrative Courts which stated “Lawsuit only able to be filed within 90 days since the receipt or the announcement of state administrative institution’s or state administrative official’s decision” (“Gugatan dapat diajukan hanya dalam tenggang waktu sembilan puluh hari terhitung sejak saat diterimanya atau diumumkannya Keputusan Badan atau Pejabat Tata Usaha Negara”). He claimed that he was convicted for corruption and had been dismissed as civil servant in North Maluku High Prosecutor Office on January 14, 2013. He received his dismissal letter when he was serving his imprisonment, so he was late in filing lawsuit. He then considered that Article 55 Act a quo didn’t provide legal uncertainty on state administrative decision review. Moreover, he also argued that the distance and the geographical condition of North Maluku Province troubled him in filing lawsuit if only given 90 days. He considered that the petition is discriminative.

In Court Verdict Number 57/PUU-XIII/2015, the Court argues Applicant’s arguments have no legal ground. According to the Court, Article 55 Act a quo has provided legal certainty, in which the Court state similar statement in previous verdict, which is Court Verdict Number 1/PUU-V/2007. The Court declares that entire Acts relevant to state administrative decision/statute (beschikking) always have time limit provision in order to provide legal certainty (rechtzekerheid) on the decision/statute regarding the time of the decision/statute able to be sued in courts.

According to the Court, the time limit of 90 days in filing lawsuit doesn’t considered as discriminative provision because the provision indeed treats equal treatment without privileging any region. The Court worries that time privilege on East Indonesia region will cause injustice for citizens in other regions.   

The Court also considers that Applicant’s argument saying citizens in East Indonesia are troubled with geographical condition and infrastructure difficulties in fulfilling lawsuit filing time limit, has no legal ground. The Court argues the time limit is sufficient and citizens are eased to get access to justice by information and communication technology advancement. Lawsuit filing procedure is also able to be done by giving authority to other person.

Therefore, the Court concludes that even though the Court has jurisdiction over Applicant’s petition and the Applicant has legal ground, however the Court assesses Applicant’s petition has no legal ground. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---