Sumarto, Principal Petitioner, after ruling hearing of judicial review of the Law on State Administrative High Court (PTUN Law), Tuesday (28/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi / MK) rejected the entire review and stated that it did not accept the judicial review of Article 1 numbers 7, 8, and 9 of Law No. 51/2009 on State Administrative High Court (PTUN Law), Tuesday (28/11). The Constitutional Court declared the petition principal of Case No. 55/PUU-XV/2017 unreasonable under the law and having no legal standing.

"Declares the petition of Petitioner VII unacceptable. Declares rejecting the Petitioner’s Petition for all," said Justice Anwar Usman as chairman of the hearing while reading the verdict.

The case was filed by seven retirees of the State-run bus company Jakarta Passenger Transportation (PPD). The seven petitioners are Sofyan H, Wiyono, Taripan Siregar, Dasman, Sumarto and Sortha Siagian. The Petitioners had filed a lawsuit to the State Administrative High Court (PTUN) because their pension salary had not been paid, and [the lawsuit] was not accepted by PTUN citing the reason that the PTUN was not authorized [to try the issue]. PTUN stated that PPD is a State-Owned Enterprise (BUMN) and not a [government institution]. On this basis, [the Petitioners] requested that Articles 1 numbers 7, 8, and 9 of the PTUN Law be canceled so that their pension salary can be paid.

In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, the Court stated that the object of the Petitioners\' petition is the norms of the general provisions in the PTUN Law. The Petitioners did not explain the part/phrase of the norms that resulted in constitutional impairment.

"If connected to the reference Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which in essence guarantees fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law, the formulation of Article 1 numbers 7, 8, and 9 of the PTUN Law has clearly regulated what is defined by State Administration, State Administration Officers and Officials, and State Administrative Decision. There are no words or phrases in the norm that contain legal uncertainty," he explained.

Justice Saldi continued that in Law No. 12/2011 on the Establishment of Laws and Regulations that contains general provisions containing: (a) definition boundaries or definitions; (b) abbreviations or acronyms set out in definition boundaries or definitions; and/or (c) other matters of a general nature applicable to articles or the following articles, including provisions that reflect principles, aims, and objectives without being formulated separately in articles or chapters..

"If the Court follows the petition of the Petitioners that state that Article 1 numbers 7, 8, and 9 of the PTUN Law are contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal force, it would potentially lead to legal uncertainty and even potentially damage the substance of the norms of several articles and paragraphs in the a quo law," he stressed. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)