The ruling hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2008 on Ombudsman, Tuesday (8/31/2021) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, August 31, 2021 | 18:23 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire petition by Hendry Agus Sutrisno, who challenged Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 37 of 2008 on Ombudsman. The ruling hearing of the case No. 7/PUU-XIX/2021 took place on Tuesday, August 31, 2021.

Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Suhartoyo read out the Court’s legal considerations, in which the Court held that all citizens who suffer from maladministration by state administrators in relation to state budget (APBN) may file a report to the Ombudsman. Any limitation to the possible actions that the Ombudsman can take shows respect to other institutions who are carrying out examination, especially the judiciary.

Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the Ombudsman Law is aimed at preventing any overlap of authority, especially the judiciary. In addition, it is also aimed at allowing the people and relevant institutions to settle any dispute according to statutory law. “Therefore, the norm of the a quo has not only fulfilled justice seekers’ sense of justice for but also provided legal certainty for the complainant and the reported party,” Justice Suhartoyo read out.

Also read: Depok PNS Challenges Provision on Grievance in Ombudsman Law

Narrowing Scope

Meanwhile, Justice Suhartoyo added, the Petitioner petitioned so that the a quo provision especially the phrase “the process of court examination” be expanded or added with the phrase “and/or in relation to maladministration in the investigation and/or research.” The Court stressed that should the request be accommodated, it would narrow the scope of objects that can be reported to the Ombudsman in case of maladministration, and might lead to the removal of investigator and researcher as legal subjects that can be reported to the Ombudsman, except those among state/government administrators.

In addition, Justice Suhartoyo said, making maladministration by the investigator and researcher as part of the exception in the a quo provision would lead to ambiguity of the report that the complainant can file because Article paragraph (1) and Article 6 of Law No. 37 of 2008 are contrary to Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b and they are of different natures. While the former regulates the Ombudsman’s authority to receive all reports, the latter regulates its authority to reject them.

“Therefore, it is clear that the a quo petition was granted by the Court, there would be legal uncertainty because, in addition to accommodating the Petitioner’s concrete case, which was irrelevant to the constitutionality of the a quo norm, it would create other issues due to the new interpretation of the implementation of the a quo norm, said Justice Suhartoyo at the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Also read: Petitioner of Ombudsman Law Revises Petitum

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner claimed the norm in contention violated Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraphs (2) and (4) of the 1945 Constitution. He believes the Ombudsman cannot receive any grievance from the people that is and has become the object of judicial proceedings, including pretrial, except if it is related to maladministration in judicial examination, including pretrial. Meanwhile, pretrial institutions can only adjudicate and rule the formal aspect of cases.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/3/2021 08:38 WIB

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

---