Preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of the State Civil Apparatus through video conference, Tuesday (19/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the judicial review hearing of Law No. 5 of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law), Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System, Law No. 25 of 2009 on Public Service, Law No. 14 of 2005 on Teachers and Lecturers, Law No. 36 of 2009 on Health, Law No. 44 of 2009 on Hospitals and Law No. 38 of 2014 on Nursing Care on Tuesday (19/2/2019). The preliminary hearing of case No. 13/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Ponorogo District Government General Hospital (RSUD) civil servant Rochmadi Sularsono and the Mitreka Satatha Civil Society Forum (Forpimmisa).

The Petitioners felt that their constitutional rights had been violated by the enactment of a number of articles in the law petitioned, especially on the provision on non-permanent employees. Rochmadi Sularsono, who was present at the hearing, considered the law resulted in the absence of legal certainty and discriminatory actions for non-permanent employees. According to the Petitioners, a non-permanent employee is an employee appointed for a certain period of time to carry out government and administrative duties according to the needs and capabilities of the organization. "The a quo law only describes 2 types of ASN employees, namely PNS and PPK. Even though, according to the Petitioners, there is one more type of employee, namely non-civil servants," he said through video teleconference.

Rochmadi said that the Petitioners also questioned the authority to appoint ASN in education and health, which was contrary to other laws. In their statement, the Petitioners requested that all articles in the law be declared not legally binding.

Petitioners’ Signature

Chairperson of the panel, Justice Arief Hidayat questioned the Petitioners acting on behalf of many in the petition. “There is no power of attorney. Most importantly, the Petitioners did not sign the petition,” he said.

Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna questioned the Petitioners’ commitment in filing the petition. He said that the lack of signatures in the petition would cause it to be regarded as anonymous. Justice Palguna also criticized the format of the petition that had not followed existing standard. He advised that they ask for suggestions from experts who had filed a petition in the Court. He also reminded that the petition be revised completely if they wished to continue with the case. “The legal standing should also be clarified. What are the constitutional losses that the Petitioners suffered?” he added.

Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul also criticized the overall format of the petition. “The Petitioners should consult with an expert to [revise] the petition,” he said.

The Petitioners were given 14 workdays to revise the petition. The next session was scheduled to hear the petition revision. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)