Principal Petitioner Marsudi after the judicial review hearing of the Ombudsman Law, Tuesday (14/5) 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 second hearing of Law No. 37 of 2008 on Ombudsman Law in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday (14/5/2019). The case No. 33/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by SOE (BUMN) pensioner Marsudi, who argues that Article 36 paragraph (1) letter g of the Ombudsman Law contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Marsudi, who was present without an attorney, conveyed several revision points, one of which is actual, specific constitutional loss as the Petitioner cannot inherit a land that was used as a public facility without appropriate compensation. This, he added, could potentially harm other citizens.

“With the enactment of Article 36 paragraph (1) letter g of Law No. 37 of 2008, the Ombudsman Decree Number 133/SRT/0167.2018/AA116/Tim4/11/2019 dated February 11, 2019 is subjective, [does not have] legal certainty, [leading to] opportunities for lies, corruption, collusion, and nepotism,” Marsudi said before the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Suhartoyo.

Marsudi then said that the revision on the reason for the petition for the judicial review of Article 36 paragraph (1) letter g of the Ombudsman Law is because the denial of maladministration is subjective, [does not have] legal certainty, and does not have legal power because there is no fact and data on it. If fact and data showing maladministration were found, the provision would be null and void, and therefore contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. “With no legal ppwer, the Petitioner does not have guarantee over his admission,” Marsudi explained.

In the previous hearing, the Petitioner 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.

Marsudi reported the loss 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. 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. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)