---

The Petitioner’s attorney Yohanes Mahatma Pambudianto seen to be reading out the petition revisions virtually at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 39 of 2008 on State Ministries, Tuesday (13/10). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 39 of 2008 on State Ministries on Tuesday, October 13, 2020 virtually from the Plenary Courtroom. Before the bench led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the Petitioner’s attorney Yohanes Mahatma Pambudianto conveyed that the Petitioner had revised the petition on the Constitutional Court’s authorities, the Petitioner’s legal standing and his constitutional impairment, the reason behind the petition, and the petitum.

Yohanes said the Constitutional Court is the guardian of the Constitution whose interpretation of the laws is the only and final one that has legal force. The Court can also declare a norm conditionally constitutional as a guidance for lawmakers to revised said norm. “It must be understood that formulating a norm is different from making a norm in a law that has been promulgated,” he stressed.

He said that in the digital era of today, social media plays an important role, so that the Court must acknowledge the legal standing of social media influencers, who can participate in enforcing constitutionalism through their influence on their followers.

Yohanes also said that the president and the Minister of BUMN (State-Owned Enterprises)’s lack of understanding and their non-compliance of the validity of the Constitutional Court’s decisions means disobedience to the Constitution. It sets a bad precedent for the administration and degrades the authority of the Constitutional Court’s decisions. He added that in order to maintain the enactment of constitutional values, the legal uncertainty must be solved by the Constitutional Court by declaring Article 23 of the State Ministry Law along the phrase “the ministeris prohibited from holding a concurrent position” unconstitutional insofar as not interpreted as “including the deputy minister.”

Also read: Double Positions of Deputy Ministers Challenged Again

In the petition No. 76/PUU-XVIII/2020, advocate Viktor Santoso Tandiasa challenges Article 23 of the State Ministry Law that reads, “The Minister is prohibited from holding a concurrent position as: a. another state official in accordance with statutory regulations; b. a commissioner or director of a state company or private company; or c. a head of organization financed from the State Budget and/or Regional Budget.”

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner’s attorney Yohanes Mahatma Pambudianto explained that even though the Court decided to dismiss the petition No. 80/PUU-XVII/2019, the Petitioner take the Court’s legal considerations the decidendi ratio or legal principle in the current case. As several deputy ministers are also currently commissioners, the Petitioner believes there is conflict of duties, functions, and roles of ministers and other officials under them. The Petitioner, who was also the attorney for the Petitioner of case No. 80/PUU-XVII/2019, believes the attitude of the president and the Minister of BUMN (State-Owned Enterprises) shows that they do not understand the validity of the Constitutional Court’s decision and that they have displayed disobedience to the legal power of the decision. Therefore, he requested that the Court declare Article 23 of the State Ministry Law along the phrase “the minister” constitutional and legally binding insofar as interpreted as “including the deputy minister.”

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR: Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/14/2020 15:46 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---