---

Principal petitioner Ojat Sudrajat S. delivering the subjects of the petition revision of the judicial review of the State Administration Law, Tuesday (3/3) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 30 of 2014 on State Administration was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (3/3/2020).

Petitioner Mohammad Ojat Sudrajat conveyed the points of the petition revision for case No. 11/PUU-XVIII/2020 following the justices’ recommendations in the previous session. The Petitioner elaborated on the constitutional damage and issues he believes are unconstitutional.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the constitutional justices grant his entire petition and declare Article 75 paragraph (1) of Law No. 30 of 2014 on State Administration along the phrase “Citizens who are harmed” unconstitutional insofar as not be interpreted “the interests and/or losses must be experienced directly and must be real.”

The Petitioner challenge Article 75 paragraph (1) of the State Administration Law that reads, "Citizens who are harmed by decisions and/or actions can file for administrative efforts to government officials or their superiors who determine and/or make decisions and/or actions."

Also read:Disadvantaged by State Administrative High Court Ruling, Petitioner Challenges State Administrative Law

The Petitioner is a non-governmental organization in the form of an incorporated association. The Petitioner feels disadvantaged because based on Decision on Case No. 45/G/2019/PTUN.SRG they were declared to have no direct and real interests and losses on the object of the lawsuit, the Decree of the Governor of Banten regarding the Appointment of the Inspector of Banten Province, who is known to have a track record of conflicting with legislation. 

Based on the State Administrative High Court (PTUN) ruling, the Petitioner believes that there would be future State Administrative High Court rulings in state administrative disputes in relation to recruitment of state institutions or public agencies that would restrict the Petitioner\'s efforts concerning observation over various public policies.

The Petitioner argued that Article 75 paragraph (1) of the State Administration Law violates the constitutional right of the Petitioner, so that the Petitioner suffer a constitutional damage from loss of opportunity during the hearing at the State Administrative High Court, where their lawsuit was not accepted insofar as the a quo article was interpreted as disadvantaged members of the community must have and experience direct and real interest and damage. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 3/4/2020

---