Principal Petitioner Marsudi (right) in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2008 on Ombudsman, Monday (30/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) declared on Monday (30/9/2019) the judicial review petition of Law No. 37 of 2008 on Ombudsman not accepted. The Decision No. 33/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The petition 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. 

Reading out the legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that after the Court had read and studied the petition carefully, the Court found that the Petitioner could not describe clearly and in detail the conflict between Article 36 paragraph (1) letter g and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In the preliminary hearing on April 29, 2019, the Court had advised the Petitioner to revise the petition by first consulting with legal aid agencies. However, in the revised petition received by the Court on May 7, 2019 via e-mail, the Petitioner apparently was unable to clearly explain the conflict between the norm requested to be reviewed against the 1945 Constitution. 

"The Petitioner only briefly outlined the reasons for reviewing Article 36 paragraph (1) letter g of Law 37/2008 against Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because according to the Petitioner the norm of the a quo provision is subjective and do not have certainty due to the absence of facts and data regarding maladministration," said Justice Enny before the court, presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, with the six other constitutional justices. 

The justices could not find any connection between the reasons for the petition and the petitum as the Petitioner’s elaboration of the reasons for reviewing the a quo law is vague. "The verdict adjudicated, declares the Petitioner\'s petition cannot be accepted," Justice Anwar said in the ruling hearing. 

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/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti