---

Principal Petitioner accompanied by his legal counsel when interviewed by the media after the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Law on State Administrative High Court on Wednesday (23/8) at the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held the first trial of the material judicial review of Article 1 numbers 1, 2, and 3 of Law Number 9 Year 2004 on State Administrative High Court (PTUN Law), Wednesday (23/8). The case was filed by seven retirees of the State-run bus company Jakarta Passenger Transportation (PPD).

The seven Petitioners of case Number 55/PUU-XIV/2017 are Sofyan H., Wiyono, Taripan Siregar, Dasman, Sumarto, Sortha Siagian, and Suryamah. The Petitioners were represented by attorney Muhammad Yusuf Hasibuan. The article being reviewed are as follows.

Article 1 number 1:

"The State Administration is a State Administration that serves to administer government affairs both at central and regional levels."

Article 1 number 2:

"State Administrative Agency or Official is an Agency or Official performing government affairs under applicable laws and regulations."

Article 1 number 3:

"A State Administration decision is a written decision that is issued by a State Administration Agency/Official under applicable, concrete, individual, and final applicable laws and regulations, which have legal consequences for a civil or legal entity."

Yusuf explained that the Petitioners constitutional rights were violated by the articles. Previously, the Petitioners filed a lawsuit to the Jakarta State Administrative High Court (PTUN) because their pension salary had not been paid by the company. Then, on July 7, 2008, Decision Number 07/G/2008/PTUN-JKT was issued, stating that Jakarta PTUN had no right to hold trial on the dispute. That is because such lawsuits should be submitted to the Industrial Relations Court (PHI).

"State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) employees are not similar to Civil Servants (PNS), in accordance with Article 95 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Government Regulation Number 45 Year 2005 on the Establishment, Management, Supervision, and Dissolution of State-Owned Enterprises. PTUN can only handle cases of individuals who are classified as civil servants (PNS)," he explained.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court cancel the articles being reviewed.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna stressed that the Constitutional Court was a judicial institution that review norms, not concrete cases. Palguna considered the case being filed was a concrete case. "The Petition requested that the articles of the PTUN Law be canceled so that their pension can be paid. However, it does not work that way," he said.

Palguna requested that the Petitioners conduct a more in-depth analysis. He warned the Petitioners so that their action in finding a solution by questioning the articles not become inappropriate. If the article was cancelled, he explained, it would lead to legal uncertainty.

"Suppose the Petitioners’ petition was granted by the Constitutional Court, there would be a legal vacuum because the PTUN’s existence was not legally recognized," he said.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul said the Petitioners should re-think the petition because, according to him, there were a number of fundamental problems in its legal logic.

(ARS/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti) 

 

---