Panel hearing of the judicial review of the ASN Law in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Several civil servants (PNS) who submitted two petitions for the judicial review of Law No. 5/2014 on the State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law) revised the petition on Wednesday (7/11). The case registered as No. 87/PUU-XVI/2018 was submitted by Hendrik. Five Petitioners—Fatah Yasin, Panca Setiadi, Nawawi, Nurlaila, and Djoko Budiono—filed for case No. 88/PUU-XVI/2018.

In the second hearing, Petitioner No. 87/PUU-XVI/2018 represented by Nurmadjito conveyed revision of the argument of the petition. He stated that the a quo law had been misimplemented, so it should be declared contrary to the provisions that have been decided by the Constitutional Court, that those convicted for corruption cases must not participate in the elections.

In addition, he also argued that the ASN Law also contradicted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that stipulates that every citizen must obtain their rights in accordance with the provisions stipulated in the convention on civil rights.

"The loss suffered by the principal Petitioners [and other civil servants], among others, is that they are now in a difficult position because there is no guarantee that the Government will resolve the issue legally," he stressed in the hearing that chaired by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman.

Meanwhile, Muhammad Sholeh as the attorney of Petitioner No. 88/PUU-XVI/2018 explained that one of the Petitioners, Yasin Fatah, withdrew the petition. In addition, the Petitioners also improved their legal standing. "The Petitioners considers the enactment of Article 87 paragraph (4) letter b of Law Number 5 of 2014 arbitrary. It is not explained in the formulation of the norm, which provisions must [the Petitioners] be subject to? [The norm] does not list it, unlike paragraph (2) or letter d," he explained.

The Petitioner of case No. 87/PUU-XVI/2018 claimed to have been disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 87 paragraph (2) and Article 87 paragraph (4) of the ASN Law, which regulates the dismissal of ASN. The Petitioner, who had served a prison sentence, argued that the word "may" in Article 87 paragraph (2) of the ASN Law could lead to the subjective implementation of norms. Furthermore, according to him, the phrase "having committed a criminal offense with a minimum sentence of 2 (two) years imprisonment and a premeditated criminal offense" in Article 87 paragraph (4) letter d does not specify any criminal acts. The Petitioner considered it to cause uncertainty in the implementation of the a quo norm. The Petitioner concluded that all norms that he petitioned basically were contrary to "Principle of Implementation," "Principle of Clarity of Formulation," "Principle of Justice," "Principle of Equality in Law and Government," and "Principle of Certainty and Legal Certainty."

Meanwhile, Petitioners of case No. 88/PUU-XVI/2018 felt harmed by the enactment of Article 87 paragraph (4) letter b of the ASN Law, which they deemed containing legal uncertainty, prevents the Petitioners from being active and obtaining equal opportunities in the Government. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the two a quo articles be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)