Provision on Regional Head Term of Office Challenged
Image

Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra, Suhartoyo, and Wahiduddin Adams opening the judicial review hearing of Law No. 10 of 2016 on Pilkada for case No. 55/PUU-XX/2022, Thursday (5/19/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


Thursday, May 19, 2022 | 11:58 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review hearing of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) on Thursday, May 19, 2022. The case No. 55/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by the association Perkumpulan Maha Bidik Indonesia.

At the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra, Suhartoyo, and Wahiduddin Adams, the legal bureau officer of the association, Faturohman, said that Article 71 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law especially the phrase “shall be prohibited from replacing officials 6 (six) months before the date of stipulation of the candidate pairs” was null and void or not legally binding for governors/vice governors, regents/vice regents, and mayors/vice mayors whose term end in 2022 and 2023, since the pilkada would only take place in 2024. “So, the 6-month time before the date of stipulation of the candidate pairs goes against Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” he said.

Faturohman explained that the term of governor and vice governor of Banten would end in May 2022 or in six weeks since the hearing. However, the government of Banten Province would rotate and transfer echelon II officials as there has been a recommendation from the KASN (Civil Service Commission) based on Letter No. B-959/JP.00.01/03/2022.

“The provision of Article 71 paragraph (2) of the Pilkada Law on the phrase ‘shall be prohibited from replacing officials 6 (six) months before the date of stipulation of the candidate pairs’ is interpreted as the ‘de-missionary’ of regional heads and their deputies, so rotation and/or transfer of officials in the regional government should not take place,” he said virtually.

The Petitioner believed that if said phrase in the a quo article was deemed null and void, the six-month period would not be met and, thus, there would be inequality between citizens in law and government, which is against Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and lead to legal uncertainty and unfair treatment before the law, which is against Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Faturohman added that the transfer of level I or II regional leaders whose term end in 2022 and 2023, such as what happened in Banten Province, would be followed by other regions when it could be motivated by a close relationship with leaders whose terms would be ending and were seeking reelection in 2024, except if it was necessary because the officials in question had passed away, retired, or been transferred. As such, the period was against Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the a quo norm unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as the phrase in question be interpreted to not apply to regional leaders whose term end in 2022 and 2023.

Also read: Petitioner Absent, Court Delays Hearing on Pilkada Law

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams said that the term of the association’s board was 2019-2021 or two years. “So, in 2021 there should be a change of the board. This [board] is outdated. Please see the document, whether there is any new document on the board or not,” he said.

He also advised the Petitioner to revise their argument by reconstructing the posita and petitum. “Do not let the posita and petitum be meaningless,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioner to revise the power of attorney. “So Mr. Faturohman and the other [legal counsel] who is absent today are to attend [the next hearing]. However, if the [Petitioner] attends, it is not prohibited. However, they will have no right to speak because they have given power to the legal counsel,” he explained.

He also requested that the Petitioner explain their legal standing in relation to their constitutional impairment. “What is the relation between the general objective of the organization for the interest of the people and the fight for Article 71 paragraph (2)? It will urge the Court to observe the alleged constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the norm being reviewed,” he said.

Before concluding the hearing, the panel gave the Petitioner 14 workdays to revise the petition until June 2. However, they were to submit a petition withdrawal letter to the Registrar’s Office should they wish so.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 5/19/2022 13:34 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, May 19, 2022 | 11:58 WIB 30