Chief Justice Anwar Usman striking the gavel after reading out the decision of the judicial review of the Village Law for case No. 42/PUU-XIX/2021, Thursday (9/30/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.
Thursday, September 30, 2021 | 16:44 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) granted part of the judicial review petition of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village on Thursday, September 30, 2021 at a ruling hearing in the plenary courtroom. “[The Court] adjudicated, grants the Petitioner’s petition in part,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out verdict of the Decision No. 42/PUU-XIX/2021.
The verdict annulled the elucidation to Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Village Law, which read, “A head of village who has served for 1 (one) term based on Law No. 32 of 2004 shall have the opportunity to run for a maximum of (two) more terms. Similarly, a head of village who has served for 2 (two) terms based on Law No. 32 of 2004 shall have the opportunity to serve for only 1 (one) more term.”
The elucidation to Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Village Law now reads, “A head of village who has served for 1 (one) term, either based on Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village or based on a previous law, shall have the opportunity to serve for 2 (two) more terms. Then, a head of village who has served for 2 (two) terms, either based on Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village or based on a previous law, shall have the opportunity to serve for 1 (one) more term.”
Also read: Sungai Ketupak Village Chief Questions Limit of Three Terms
Reading out the Court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said that the limit to the village head’s office was limited to 3 terms based on Law No. 6 of 2014. It was not only based on Law No. 32 of 2004, which could have led to arbitrariness and all kinds of violations.
“This means that when a village head has served for three terms, either based on Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village or a previous law, whether consecutively or not as referred to in Article 39 of Law No. 6 of 2014, shall have served for three terms, either at the same or different village,” Justice Enny said.
As such, the elucidation to Article 39 of Law No. 6 of 2014 must be adjusted to avoid ambiguity and legal uncertainty and must be declared in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution insofar as not interpreted as “a head of village who has served for 1 (one) term, either based on Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village or based on a previous law, shall have the opportunity to serve for 2 (two) more terms. Then, a head of village who has served for 2 (two) terms, either based on Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village or based on a previous law, shall have the opportunity to serve for 1 (one) more term.”
“Therefore, the Petitioner’s petition insofar as the Elucidation to Article 39 of Law No. 6 of 2014 is legally valid in part,” said Justice Enny concluding the Court’s legal considerations.
Also read: Petitioner of Provision on Village Chief Term Affirms Background of Petition
Nedi Suwiran, kades (village chief) of Sungai Ketupak, Cengal Subdistrict, Ogan Komering Ilir Regency, South Sumatera Province, challenged Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Village Law, which he believed contradicted Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. He was elected village chief for a 5-year term for 2005–2009 following the provision of Law No. 22 of 1999. He was reelected for another 6-year term for 2015–2021 following the provision of Law No. 32 of 2004.
The Petitioner argued that Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Village Law and its elucidation had provided legal certainty on the limit of term of office of village heads—three terms based on Law No. 32 of 2004. On the other hand, it led to ambiguity regarding the opportunity to run in the village head election because the elucidation was convoluted and ambiguous and might cause people to have different interpretations. The provision should clearly regulate whether the term be consecutive or not.
He also argued that the ambiguity had led to the postponement of the village head election, along with the Ogan Komering Ilir Regent Letter No. 140/458/D.PMD/II.1/2021 dated July 21, 2021.
Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Village Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not be interpreted as “Head of village may serve for a maximum of 3 (three) terms consecutively or not, of which certification is based on Law No. 32 of 2004. Therefore, the village head term based on the law before Law No. 32 of 2004, so the term of a head of village based on the law before Law No. 32 of 2004 is in effect is not included.”
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 10/2/2021 15:19 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.
Thursday, September 30, 2021 | 16:44 WIB 188