Petitioner Rochmadi Sularsono attending the judicial review hearing of the Law on State Civil Apparatus through video conference, Monday (4/3) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Dedy.

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 Monday afternoon (4/3/2019). The second hearing of case No. 13/PUU-XVII/2019, petitioned by Ponorogo District Government General Hospital (RSUD) civil servant Rochmadi Sularsono and the Mitreka Satatha Civil Society Forum (Forpimmisa), was scheduled for preliminary examination.

In the revision hearing, the panel of justices consisting of Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, I Dewa Gede Palguna, and Manahan M.P. Sitompul questioned the seemingly unchanged petition. “The petition is still the same as the initial one, even when [the Petitioners] have been advised [but] it remains. The petitum does not change either,” Justice Arief said.

Justice Arief stressed again that the loss described by the Petitioners is a factual loss. Meanwhile, in a judicial review, the justices consider constitutional loss.

Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna stressed that there were no litigation fees at the Constitutional Court, responding to the Petitioner\'s attached statement that mentions the absence of costs so that they have to take turns attending the hearing. “At the Constitutional Court, there are no litigation fees at all. However, if the costs meant by the Petitioners are expenses, they are not litigation fees but the Petitioners’ personal expenses,” he said.

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 considered the law resulting 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 Petitioners also questioned the authority to appoint ASN in education and health, which is contrary to other laws. In their statement, the Petitioners requested that all articles in the law be declared not legally binding. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)