---

Tuesday, March 30, 2021 | 13:05 WIB

Secretary-General M. Guntur Hamzah speaking at a public lecture organized by the Law Faculty of Airlangga University, Tuesday (30/3/2021) from the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Secretary-General of the Constitutional Court M. Guntur Hamzah discussed the procedural law for the dispute of authority between state agencies (SKLN) comprehensively at a public lecture for alumni organized by the Law Faculty of Airlangga University on Tuesday, March 30, 2021. Guntur delivered a lecture on “The Resolution of Interagency Authority Disputes in the Constitutional Court” before 45 participants.

Guntur started the lecture by explaining the Court’s authorities and obligation: examining laws against the Constitution, deciding on authority disputes among state institutions, deciding on the dissolution of political parties, and deciding on disputes over general election results. The Court’s obligation is deciding on the House’s (DPR) opinion of alleged violation committed by the president and/or vice president. The Court has an additional authority: deciding on disputes over regional head election results. The Court also has 6 functions, he added, among others are the guardian of the Constitution, the guardian of democracy, and the guardian of the state ideology.

Guntur explained that since 2003, the Court has ruled 26 interagency authority dispute cases. Out of the 26, 6 of them were filed in 2011. “Those are the interagency authority dispute cases that the Constitutional Court has settled,” he said from his office in the Constitutional Court building, Jakarta.

Procedural Law for Interagency Authority Disputes

Guntur then explained the procedural law for interagency authority dispute cases comprehensively. He highlighted some key points that the litigating parties should understand before filing such a case. In such cases, there are the petitioner, the respondent, and the relevant party. Based on Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 8/PMK/2006, the petitioner for such a case is a state institution that believes its constitutional rights have been taken away, reduced, restricted, ignored, and/or harmed by another. In this case, he stressed, only state institutions regulated in the 1945 Constitution whose authority is at stake in the dispute can file such a petition.

The respondent is the state institution that allegedly has taken away, reduced, restricted, ignored, and/or harmed the petitioner’s constitutional rights. The relevant party is one that has direct or indirect interest in the case, which the Court can summon to testify and clarify some matters related to the case. Aside from those three actors, a key issue in such a case is the petitioner’s legal standing, as it concerns the subject and object of the case, as explained in the Court Decision No. 2/SKLN-IX/2011.

“If the requirements of either or both the legal object and subject aren’t met, the Court doesn’t have authority to rule on the case,” Guntur explained.

He then elaborated on the steps to filing such a petition. The petitioner must follow the format of petition. Guntur urged the participants to access the Court’s website to find out about it.

The litigation process in the Court is similar to that in any courts, starting from filing a petition, examining whether the petition has fulfilled the document and registration requirements, and scheduling the hearing. The Court then holds a preliminary hearing where the petitioner is given the floor to explain their petition, after which they are given time to revise it. After a petition revision hearing and evidentiary hearing(s), the Court holds a justice deliberation meeting (RPH) to write its opinions on its ruling on the case.

In SKLN cases, the Court issues a final decision, or it may issue an interlocutory decision, which orders the petitioner/respondent to stop the implementation of the disputed authority until a final decision is passed. “As such, [the disputing state agencies] cannot implement the authority in question because the Court orders it be on hold until the final decision is passed,” Guntur explained.

At the end of his lecture, Guntur explained the types of Court decisions in SKLN cases: inadmissible, granted, and rejected. He then revealed a few SKLN cases in the Court. The petition No. 3/SKLN-XI/2013 was declared inadmissible. Its petitioner was the Elections Supervisory Body (Bawaslu), while the respondent was the Aceh Legislative Council (DPRA) and the governor of Aceh Province. The Court stated in its opinions that the authority being disputed (objectum litis) was not one granted to the petitioner by the 1945 Constitution, but by Law No. 15 of 2011. Therefore, it didn’t meet the requirements for case object as per Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution and Article 61 of the Constitutional Court Law.

After delivering his lecture, Guntur welcomed questions and responses from the participants. He also asked them to visit www.mkri.id to learn about such cases that the Court has settled, so that they can understand the Court’s authority regarding the jurisdictions of state institutions.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Nur R.

Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti
Editor: NL

Translation uploaded on 3/30/2021 19:26 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.

---