---

Principal Petitioner Marsudi conveying the subjects of the petition in the judicial review hearing of the Ombudsman Law, Monday (29/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the first hearing of Law No. 37 of 2008 on Ombudsman Law in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (29/4/2019). The case No. 33/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by SOE (BUMN) pensioner Marsudi, who argued that Article 36 paragraph (1) letter g of the Ombudsman Law contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the hearing led by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Suhartoyo, the Petitioner claimed that Article 36 paragraph (1) letter g of the Ombudsman Law, which reads, “The Ombudsman shall reject the grievance as specified under Article 35 letter a in the event of: … Not finding any maladministration,” has violated his constitutional rights.

Marsudi, who was present without an attorney, said that in a concrete case, part of his land was used as a public facility pursuant to Article 6 of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA). In the Law, Marsudi explained, all rights to land are said to have a social function, but Article 18 of the UUPA is imposed on land ownership in that if such a land is used for public interest, the right to the land could be revoked with appropriate compensation according to law. However, in reality, as one of the heirs to a plot of land that has been used for public facilities, he had not received compensation.

Upon the loss, Marsudi reported to the Ombudsman of the Special Region of Yogyakarta and received the Letter of the Ombudsman of the Special Region of Yogyakarta Number 15/L/LODDIY/I/2013 dated January 9, 2013, stating that there had been maladministration. However, the report of the Indonesian Ombudsman Decree Number 133/SRT/0167.2018/AA116/Tim4/11/2019 dated February 11, 2019 states that there was no maladministration, based on the Yogyakarta Municipality BPN (National Land Agency) Report, which declares that the Petitioner’s file on the disputed plot of land is not equipped with the deed of co-ownership (APHB) as a means of land titling.

"I feel cheated, when [meeting] the PPAT (land deed official) to handle the land certificate, it turned out the file was personal. I reported it to the regional ombudsman. It was said that there had been maladministration, but even the Indonesian Ombudsman said there was no maladministration, even though I paid taxes on the land and I had not been compensated for the use of the land for public facilities, I could not fight for my rights over the land,” Marsudi explained.

Therefore, through the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare that the content of Article 36 paragraph (1) letter g of Law Number 37 of 2008 on the Indonesian Ombudsman contradict the 1945 Constitution.

Format of the Petition

Justice Enny said that the Petitioner needs to learn more about the format of the petitions at the Constitutional Court. "Please adjust the format because in the Court, the norm contradiction must be clear. If a concrete case is submitted, it is not the authority of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it must be very clear, what is the assumed loss of constitutional rights, actual or potential, experienced by the Petitioner," she said.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked about the concrete case experienced by the Petitioner, which could actually heard at the district court given that there is no conflict between the norm and the constitutional rights of the Petitioner. Justice Wahiduddin asked the Petitioner to truly understand judicial review cases at the Constitutional Court.

Before ending the session, Justice Enny reminded the Petitioner to revise and submit the petition no later than Monday, May 13, 2019 at 11.00 WIB to the Registrar\'s Office of the Constitutional Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---