---

Rumondang delivered Government’s testimony in further session of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Act, on Tuesday (23/8) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Limitation of ad hoc justice term has already in accordance with the characteristic and the need of ad hoc justice position in Industrial Relations Court and in the Supreme Court, directorate general of Industrial Relations and social security of the Manpower Ministry Haiyani Rumondang delivered in further session of Case No….. on Tuesday (23/8). The petition concerning Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement Act (UU PPHI) was filed by ad hoc justices Mustofa and Sahala Aritonang.

Representing the President, Rumondang delivered response on the ad hoc justices’ petition. In the session led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat, Rumondang argued that Article 24 the 1945 Constitution has determined judicial authority as independent authority to conduct court activities to enforce law and justice.

The judicial authority referred is conducted by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, as well as several judicial authorities under the Supreme Court; general court, religious court, military court, and state administrative courts.

“In addition to general court, religious court, military court, and state administrative court, a particular court whose establishment is set in legislation can be structurally established in one of the courts under the Supreme Court. Industrial relations court is one of the courts under the Supreme Court,” said him.   

Rumondang explained that ad hoc justice who possesses expert and experience in particular field can be appointed in particular court, for example in industrial relations court. The position of ad hoc justice in particular court is regulated in Article 1 number 9 Act of Judicial Authority (UU Kekuasaan Kehakiman).

“The establishment of ad hoc justice is initially to strengthen role and function of judicial authority in law enforcement and justice. The need of ad hoc justice is in accordance with case complexity. Ad hoc justice is non-career justice who posses expertise and ability to adjudicate a particular case, so ad hoc justice along with career justice can give positive impact to adjudicate a case,” said Rumondang.

Moreover, Rumondang explained that particularity of ad hoc justice was regulated in different Acts which depended on the scope of court referred. Therefore, the requirement of ad hoc justice is different in each courts.

Regarding Applicant’s argument requesting ad hoc justice term equated with career judge, the Government argued that it was ungrounded and irrelevant. “Regarding the difference of career justice and ad hoc justice, Constitutional Court verdict vide Verdict No. 32/PUU-XII/2014 page 112 number 3.20 has stated in Court’s legal consideration that the Court considers ad hoc justice is different with career justice, however the differences doesn’t automatically cause different treatment as stipulated in Article 28I (2) the 1945 Constitution. The differences can be justified along the nature, character, and job demand are different,” said Rumondang.

Therefore, the Government considered Applicant’s petition will indeed cause discrimination if granted by the Court, because different matters will be treated similarly and vice versa.

Responding Applicant’s petition points requesting elimination of ad hoc justice’s temporary term, the Government asserted that the temporary term of ad hoc justice is already in accordance with provision of particular court, for example Article 1 number 9 Act of Judicial Authority.

The Government worried that the definition of ad hoc justice that contain the nature of temporary will be lost if the nature eliminated. The Government also argued that the changes will influence the other nature of particular justice.

Legal Standing

The Government also gave respond regarding Applicants’ legal standing. According to the Government, the Applicants didn’t have legal standing to file the petition because they didn’t fulfill the requirement of legal standing as stipulated in Article 51 (1) Act of the Constitutional Court.

The Government argued that Article 67 (2) Act of Industrial Relations Dispute Settlement didn’t cause Applicants’ constitutional loss. The Government assessed that Applicants didn’t hinder to be ad hoc justice and still got their rights as ad hoc justice. “Therefore according to the Government, Applicant’s argument regarding constitutional loss is ungrounded,” said Rumondang.

The session will be continued on Wednesday August 31, 2016 at 11.00 West Indonesian Time. The House of Representatives, Applicant’s experts and witness are about to deliver testimony in the next session. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/lul) 

---