Ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Law on the Establishment of South Buton District, Southeast Sulawesi, Wednesday (13/3) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court decided it could not accept the judicial review of Law No. 16/2014 on the Establishment of South Buton District, Southeast Sulawesi, on Wednesday (13/3/2019). The Petitioners were deemed not having the legal standing to file the petition. “Declares the petition of Petitioner I and Petitioner II cannot be accepted,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman explained in the presence of the other eight constitutional justices.

The petition No. 24/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by the Selayar Islands Regent Muh. Basli Ali. The Petitioner submitted a judicial review of the appendix of the a quo law, which contains the territorial map of the region and the explanation that the total area of ​​South Buton District is about 509.92 km². The petition for judicial review was motivated by the status of Kakabia Island that is included in the area of ​​South Buton District based on the Law on South Buton District. Meanwhile, according to the Petitioner, Kakabia Island is the administrative area of ​​Selayar Islands District.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul, the Court stated that there was an alleged constitutional loss of the regional government, so the authority to represent the regional government lies with the regional head and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) Chairperson, with the approval of the DPRD Plenary Meeting. This is based on the Court Decision Number 87/PUU-XIII/2015, dated October 13, 2016.

"However, Petitioner I (Selayar Islands Regent), who filed the petition, at the preliminary hearing included Petitioner II\'s (Chairperson of the Selayar Islands District DPRD) by not including a decision letter of the Selayar District DPRD Plenary Meeting to submit a petition," he explained.

The Court, Manahan said, argued that Petitioners I and II could not be said to be jointly filing the a quo petition as a regional government unit so, that it could not be qualified as a regional government.

"Considering because Petitioner I and Petitioner II have no legal standing, the rest of the argument of the Petitioner I and Petitioner II, including the relevant Party\'s statement, were not considered," he said. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)