---

Panel hearing of the judicial review of the State Civil Apparatus Law, Tuesday (15/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Six Kebumen District contract-based (honorer) teachers submitted a judicial review of contract-based government employees (PPPK) listed in Article 94 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of Law Number 5 of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law), Tuesday (1/15/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. They claimed the regulation prevented them from being appointed as candidate civil servants (CPNS).

The Petitioners for Case No. 1/PUU-XVII/2019 are Ahmad Zahri, Sunarto, Samsi Miftahudin, Musbikhin, Jumari Saputro, and Aris Maryono. Andi Muhammad Asrun as the attorney stated that the Petitioners had been harmed by the enactment of the ASN Law, which reduced the opportunity for contract-based employees to be appointed as CPNS. This is because the maximum age limit is 35 years old and functional staff positions require a minimum academic qualification of bachelor\'s degree (S1).

"The Petitioners, who have served for years as contract-based teachers are set aside due to the government policy that is considered discriminatory against contract-based staff, because they cannot participate in CPNS recruitment in 2018," he explained in a session chaired by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna .

The Petitioners, Asrun added, had served for years as contract-based teaching staff, but felt wasted by the government policy that was considered discriminatory against contract-based staff. They felt they could not obtain justice in the CPNS recruitment in 2018.

"Ironically, the issuance of Law 5/2014 increasingly narrows the opportunity for contract-based employees to be appointed as CPNS. This is because of the requirement of maximum age limit of 35 years and [bachelor\'s degree as minimum academic qualification for functional staff]," he said.

The basic reason for the Petitioners to persevere, Asrun said, was the dream and belief that one day there would be a government regulation or policy that facilitates the Petitioners\' appointment to be ASN.

Legal Standing Unclear

Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna asked the Petitioners not to mix the explanation of legal standing on the grounds of the conflict of the 1945 Constitution. Legal standing, he said, discussed the constitutional rights violated by the article. "The constitutional loss experienced by the Petitioner is not yet seen. What is visible is the description of the rights given by the law," he explained.

In relation to the contradiction with the 1945 Constitution, Justice Palguna said that the Court could not speak much because the Constitutional Court would be falsely viewed as the party that made the petition. However, the Petitioners must explain why the article being reviewed is considered contrary to the Constitution.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih observed the lack of constitutional loss experienced by the Petitioners. She said that the Constitutional Court did not handle concrete cases, so the Petitioners had to explain the unconstitutionality of the article for review. She also said that if the petition was later granted by the Constitutional Court, it would nullify other articles in the ASN Law. "So, Article 94 being reviewed is the main part of this law that regulates the PNS and PPPK. If it is revoked, other articles on PPPK will also be questioned," she said.

Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul criticized the format of the petition because it must clearly state the article to be reviewed; otherwise, it would be thought as the entire content of the law. In addition, he also asked the Petitioner to strengthen the legal standing because the norm to be reviewed must be constructed with the Petitioners\' legal standing. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---