(Left to right) Chief Justice Anwar Usman with Constitutionals Justices Arief Hidayat and Saldi Isra reading out Decision No. 13/PUU-XVII/2019 on the judicial review of ASN Law on Monday afternoon (15/4/2019). Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held decided not to accept the judicial review petition 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. The Decision No. 13/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman on Monday (15/4/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case 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 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 petition, the Petitioners requested that all articles in the law be declared not legally binding.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, who read out legal considerations, explained that the reason the Court could not accept the petition was because the Petitioners\' petition did not provide arguments for the contradictions between the articles petitioned for review and the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners did not elaborate on the unconstitutionality of the norms, but rather outlined the concrete cases they experienced.

"In fact, the Court in the preliminary hearing on February 19, 2019 advised the Petitioners to revise their petition in accordance with the provision of Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law and to clarify the main arguments as to why the norms of the laws petitioned for review are considered contradictory with the 1945 Constitution, but the petition of the Petitioners remained as described above," he said.

Arief added that, because the Petitioners\' petition was obscure, it did not fulfill the formal requirements of a petition as referred to in Article 30 and Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law. "Therefore, the Court did not consider the principal petition of the Petitioners further," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)