Former Chief Registrar Revises Petition on Constitutional Court Law
Image

Chief Justice Anwar Usman with Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Manahan M. P. Sitompul at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court, Monday (8/8/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.


Monday, August 8, 2022 | 15:41 WIB

JAKARTA—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court on Monday, August 8, 2022 in the plenary courtroom. The petition for case No. 72/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Zainal Arifin Hoesein, Fardiaz Muhammad, and Resti Fujianti Paujiah.

At the petition revision hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, legal counsel Dhimas Pradana detailed the revisions to the petition following the advice from the justice panel. “We have revised the Court’s authority on page four. We added the Court’s authority following Article 1 point 3 of PMK No. 2 of 2021 that the judicial review of the 1945 Constitution is under the Court’s authority as referred to in the 1945 Constitution and the Constitutional Court Law,” he explained virtually.

Dhimas added that, following the justices’ advice, the Petitioners’ legal standing and constitutional impairment had been revised. “On page 6, we revised the legal standing of Petitioners I, II, and III. On page 10 of the subject matter we also explained that the petition is not ne bis in idem and is under the Court’s jurisdiction. … Seventeen reasons for the petition have been explained on pages 11 to 15,” he explained.

Also read: Retirement Age of Chief and Deputy Registrars Questioned

The Petitioners challenge Article 7A paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law, which reads, “The Registrar’s Office as referred to in Article 7 is a functional office that performs the judicial, administrative, technical duties of the Constitutional Court with the retirement age of 62 (sixty-two) for chief registrars, deputy registrars, and substitute registrars.”

Zainal Arifin Hoesein was the Constitutional Court’s chief registrar in 2009-2011 who had to resign at 56 because the retirement age for chief registrars was not clearly regulated; Fardiaz Muhammad is currently working at a law firm; Resti Fujianti Paujiah is a graduate of the Litigation Institute of Indonesia; while Fardiaz and Resti could potentially become state civil apparatus (ASN) of the Constitutional Court’s Registrar’s Office and then build a career as registrars in the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioners feel their constitutional rights were harmed or will potentially be harmed due to the article being petitioned because Petitioner I was a former chief registrar appointed based on the Presidential Decree No. 143 and so on. Due to the ambiguity of the retirement age for chief registrars in the Constitutional Court as referred to in Article 7 paragraph (1) of Law No. 24 of 2003 in conjunction with Article 7A paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2011, the constitutional rights of Petitioner I were violated.

The Petitioners argued that the Constitutional Court’s chief registrar is one of the leaders of the supporting units in the Constitutional Court, assisted by deputy registrars. One must have been a deputy registrar and/or senior substitute registrar, so following the legislation the retirement age is 65 for chief registrars, deputy registrars, and senior substitute registrars; 62 for middle-rank and intermediate substitute registrars; and 60 for junior substitute registrars.

They also asserted that, along with the legislative change on expert functional positions and the retirement age of ASN due to the enactment of Law No. 5 of 2014 (ASN Law), the regulation on the retirement age of ASN registrars in the Constitutional Court has legally changed as well. However, Article 24C paragraph (6) of the 1945 Constitution stipulates, “The appointment and dismissal of constitutional justices, judicial procedures, and other provisions on the Constitutional Court shall be stipulated by virtue of law.” As such, this change should be regulated in law for the sake of fair legal certainty.

In the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 7A paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law unconstitutional as long as not interpreted as “The Registrar’s Office as referred to in Article 7 is a functional office that performs the judicial, administrative, technical duties of the Constitutional Court led by a Chief Registrar whose office equals that of intermediate high leadership (echelon IA), with the assistance of a deputy registrar, whose office equals that of junior high leadership (echelon IIA), and of a senior substitute registrar, with the retirement age of 65 (sixty-five) for chief registrars, deputy registrars, and senior substitute registrars and 62 (sixty-two) for middle-rank, intermediate, and junior substitute registrars; and is supported by other expert functional positions in judicial, administrative, technical duties as well as by a Registrar’s Office.

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

Translation uploaded on 8/9/2022 08:56 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.


Monday, August 08, 2022 | 15:41 WIB 31