Principal Petitioner Yuliansyah in the preliminary judicial review hearing of the ASN Law, Tuesday (19/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Musi Banyuasin civil servant (PNS) Yuliansyah requested the judicial review of Law No. 5 of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus (ASN) to the Constitutional Court (MK). In the preliminary hearing on Tuesday (19/2/2019), the Petitioner argued that Article 13; Article 25 paragraph (2) letters e and f; Article 27 letter b; Article 50; Article 53 letter e; Article 54 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4); Article 87 paragraph (2), (3), and (4) letters b and d; Article 88 paragraph (1) letter c and paragraph (2); Article 129 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4); Article 134; and Article 141 of the ASN Law were contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioner, who was being suspended, argued that the ASN Law violated his constitutional rights, especially after he had received the decree letter of the Head of the National Civil Service Agency (BKN) on behalf of the President of the Republic of Indonesia on Dishonorable Discharge of Civil Servant No. 00002/KEPKA/THD/0217 dated February 8, 2017.

The Petitioner of case No. 15/PUU-XVII/2019 said that after he had received the letter, his salary and benefits were terminated and he was not allowed to come to work. Until his retirement on July 21, 2018, his employment status was still unclear. He admitted that he received the dishonorable discharge letter because he had been sentenced two years in 2015–2017 for corruption.

“I received a letter and document of dishonorable discharge. Then I [contacted] the official who wrote the letter, because in the document there are many things that are not supposed to be within the authority of the Palembang Region VII Civil Service Agency, but the personnel supervisor officer (PPK). However, until I have retired I have not received any certainty,” Yuliansyah said before the court presided over by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul, in the presence of Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Enny Nurbaningsih.

Mix-Up

Justice Enny stated that in the petition, there seemed to be a mix-up between the judicial review of the law against the 1945 Constitution and of non-law. This caused the petition to not be within the authority of the Court. In addition, she observed that the Petitioner had not elaborated all constitutional losses caused by the enactment of the law impugned. “Which articles do you really want to review? The Petitioner [should] elaborate his constitutional losses, specific, special, or potential losses,” she explained.

Justice Suhartoyo emphasized on the need to improve the format of the petition following that which was in accordance with the Court procedure. This is important to avoid any issue of format in the petition of judicial review in the Constitutional Court.

Meanwhile, Justice Manahan requested that the Petitioner study past cases filed to the Court that were the same or similar to that which he filed. That way the Petitioner would be able to learn from those petitions for the improvement of his own. Therefore, he added, the Court would be convinced to follow-up on the a quo case on the constitutional losses of the Petitioner. “So, study [past] petitions so [you] will not be disappointed,” he asserted.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Manahan reminded the Petitioner to submit the revision to his petition, if he wished to make a revision, by Monday, March 4, 2019 at 10.00 WIB at the latest to the Court’s Registrar Office. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)