Legal counsels of the Petitioner Muhammad Junaidi in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Article 58 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus, Tuesday (26/3) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition of Article 58 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 2014 on State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law), Tuesday (26/3/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court justices considered the subject of the petition legally unreasonable because it was concerned with norm implementation.

The petition No. 6/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by Ahmad Ihsan. According to him, provisions in the ASN Law can lead to discrimination of rights, including rights not granted to contract-based teachers, nurses, and other professions that have committed themselves in the profession to become ASN. The Government without considering justice for the community only prioritizes legal certainty in fulfilling the demand of ASN.

Reading the legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra said that the petition was concerned with the implementation of the norms of the law. "So, this case is not an issue of norm constitutionality," he explained.

On the other hand, Chief Justice Anwar Usman said that further implementation of the law requires lower legislation as a requirement in the legal system. "Article 58 paragraph (1) of Law 5/2014 has led to lower legislation such as Presidential Decree 25/2018 that, as argued by the Petitioner, has impaired the Petitioner\'s constitutional rights. The argument is in fact inaccurate because Presidential Decree 25/2018 was formed not as under the provision of Article 58 paragraph (1) of Law 5/2014. [That is] because "considering" number 2 in Presidential Decree 25/2018 only mentions Law 5/2014 in general," he said.

In fact, he added, Government Regulation Number 11 of 2017 on the Management of Civil Servants (PP Number 11/2017) argued by the Petitioners as the basis for the formation of Presidential Decree 25/2018 does not include Article 58 paragraph (1) of Law 5/2014 as a provision that become the basis or reference for the formation of PP 11/2017. That means there is not enough reason to justify Article 58 paragraph (1) being contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

"If Presidential Decree 25/2018 and PP 11/2017, which are the basis of the principal argument of the Petitioner\'\'s constitutional impairment, is contrary to the 1945 Constitution, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, it is not under the Court\'s authority," he said. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)