Sumarto (middle) as principal petitioner after attending the second hearing of judicial review of Law on State Administrative High Court (PTUN Law), Monday (11/9) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court. Photo PR/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing of material judicial review of Article 1 numbers 1, 2, and 3 of Law Number 9 Year 2004 as amended by Law Number 51 Year 2009 on State Administrative High Court (PTUN Law) on Monday (11/9). The hearing of case Number 55/PUU-XV/2017 was to hear the revision of the petition.

The Petitioners’ attorney Muhammad Yusuf Hasibuan said that the Petitioners had made a revision by changing the number of law being reviewed to Law No. 51 of 2009 on Administrative High Court (the ammended law). In addition, the Petitioners also revised their petitum by requesting that the Constitutional Court declare the provisions of Article 1 numbers 7, 8, and 9 of Law Number 51 Year 2009 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 5 Year 1986 on the State Administrative High Court (PTUN Law) contrary to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force.

The case was filed by seven retirees of the State-run bus company Jakarta Passenger Transportation (PPD): Sofyan H, Wiyono, Taripan Siregar, Dasman, Sumarto, Sortha Siagian, and Suryamah.

The Petitioners felt that their constitutional rights have been 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 the 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).

The decision stated that the employees of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN) are not similar to Civil Servants (PNS), in accordance with Article 95 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Government Regulation Number 45 Year 2005 on the Establishment, Management, Supervision, and Dissolution of State-Owned Enterprises. PTUN can only handle cases of civil servants (PNS). Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court revoke the articles being reviewed.

(ARS/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)