Plenary judicial review hearing of the State Civil Apparatus (ASN) Law, Wednesday (16/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court held a further hearing of Article 87 paragraph (2) and paragraph (4) letters b and d of Law No. 5/2014 on the State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law), Wednesday (16/12). The hearing had been scheduled to hear the statement of expert for the Petitioners. However, the hearing was postponed because the expert had not submitted his CV and written statement on time.

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman said that the receipt of CV and written statement of the expert must have been submitted at least two days before the hearing. Meanwhile, the Petitioners of case Number 91/PUU-XVI/2018 sent them on Tuesday at 19.57 WIB via e-mail. "This means that the expert\'s statement cannot be heard today. [It could be presented] in the upcoming hearing or be regarded as only a written statement," he explained.

Attorney Tjoejoe S. Hernanto said that his client still wanted to present the expert\'s statement in the hearing. Therefore, Justice Anwar said the hearing was postponed and would resume on Tuesday January 29, 2019 at 11.00 WIB.

Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna reminded the Petitioner of Case Number 87/PUU-XVI/2018 about the legal standing because the Constitutional Court had received a letter from the Chairperson of the Indonesian Civil Servants Corp (KORPRI) Zudan Arif Fakrulloh that the Petitioner did not represent the organization.

"We have conveyed the objection in the official hearing. Now it is up to you whether you will respond in the conclusion or not. That is the Petitioner\'s prerogative. However, it is part of what we will consider in the Court\'s decision because of this objection letter," he explained.

Case No. 87/PUU-XVI/2018 was submitted by Hendrik, while five Petitioners—Fatah Yasin, Panca Setiadi, Nawawi, Nurlaila, and Djoko Budiono—filed for case No. 88/PUU-XVI/2018. The Petitioner of case 87 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)