---

Dahlan Pido as attorney of the Petitioner after judicial review hearing of the State Administrative Courts Law on Monday (26/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

PT Timsco Indonesia Director, S. A. Habibie, filed a judicial review of Law No. 5/1986 on State Administrative Courts (PTUN) as amended by Law No. 9/2004 and Law No. 51/2009. The preliminary hearing led by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul was held on Monday (26/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

In his petition, the Petitioner argued that the phrase "ninety days" in Article 55 of the PTUN Law has impaired his constitutional rights because it had prevented him from obtaining justice. Article 55 of the PTUN Law reads, "A lawsuit may be filed within a period of ninety days commencing on the date on which the Decree of the Board or State Administrative Officer was received or promulgated."

Dahlan Pido as attorney of the Petitioner claimed that the phrase states conceptually the period of 90 days in the PTUN Law is very short, especially when compared to the provisions of civil complaint time limits, especially the those of articles 835, 1963, and 1967 of the Civil Code whose time limit is 30 years.

In addition to the short time limit, the a quo norm is also claimed by the Petitioner to have incurred substantial expenses in filing land ownership claims. "So lawsuit time limit in State Administrative Courts is absolutely prolonged as stipulated by the Supreme Court Circular (SEMA) No. 2/1991, which regulates the extension of lawsuit time limit in the State Administrative Courts," Dahlan explained.

Furthermore, Dahlan explained that in the case experienced by the Petitioner, the provisions are not clear about the expiry of the lawsuit, a provision specifies a 90-day deadline (Article 55 of Law No. 5/1986), but another specifies more than 4 months (Article 3 paragraph (3) of Law No. 5/1986), and there is even a provision that states one can file a lawsuit at any time as long as there is loss suffered (SEMA No. 2/1991).

"[The] lack of synchrony between laws and regulations leads to legal uncertainty. Thus, the phrase "ninety days" in the a quo article petitioned proves to be contrary to the provisions of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," Dahlan explained.

In his petition, the Petitioner appealed to the Constitutional Court that the phrase "ninety days" in Article 55 of Law No. 5/1986 be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and having no binding legal force, so it results in harmony of norms on the time limit as stipulated in SEMA No. 2/1991.

Constitutional Losses

Responding to the petition No. 22/PUU-XVI/2018, Constitutional Justice Manahan Sitompul gave a response related to a similar case that had been decided by the Court some time ago. Therefore, the Petitioner was asked to learn more about the existing decision and elaborate the case experienced by the Petitioner. "So, try to describe the differences between this petition and the previous one," Justice Manahan advised.

In addition, Justice Manahan also requested that the Petitioner further affirms the constitutional losses suffered due to the enforcement of the a quo law. In his petition, he added, the Petitioner focuses more about the concrete case he experienced. Consequently, the constitutional impairment of the Petitioner is not clearly seen in the petition.

Then, Constitutional Justice Aswanto observed that in the petition the Petitioner further described concrete cases experienced on land ownership lawsuit, while the authority of the Constitutional Court is on the norms in the a quo article that harmed the Petitioner. "From what was outlined, we were asked to hear concrete cases, while our authority is more on norms. So, please elaboration again the concrete case and the norm in this article, on which part of the Petitioner suffered constitutional losses and also relate it to Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law," Justice Aswanto explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin Adams also observed that the Petitioner\'s request on the phrase "ninety days" is only on land ownership, while the Constitutional Court Decision is valid and has a wide impact when decided. "Reexamine the enactment of the phrase because this petition emphasizes more on the reasons related to losses, while the description of potential and actual losses has not been described," he explained.

At the end of the hearing, Justice Manahan conveyed that the Petitioner was given until Monday, April 9, 2018 to revise the petition. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---