Moch. Ojat Sudrajat S. (Petitioner) appearing at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman, Tuesday (9/1/2022). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Tuesday, September 6, 2022 | 16:29 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 37 of 2008 on the Ombudsman on Tuesday, September 6, 2022. The case No. 81/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Moch. Ojat Sudrajat S., a resident of Banten Province and chairman of the Maha Bidik Indonesia association. He challenges Article 10 of the Ombudsman Law, which reads, “In executing its duties and jurisdiction, the Ombudsman shall not be arrested, detained, interrogated, prosecuted, or sued before the court.”

Appearing before the Court virtually, the Petitioner said his coalition had sent an administrative objection letter No. B/2424/HK.07.03/VII/2022 to the chairperson of the Ombudsman for the results of complaint of 3 maladministration acts in the appointment of regional heads. He had also sent a complaint on abuse of power to the Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim), alleging that the Ombudsman had received and settled the complaint. He claimed to have potential loss as the Ombudsman had issued a letter to declare that it was processing all of those complaints.

“The Ombudsman should have rejected the complaint since the same complaint is being examined in the Jakarta state administrative court, so it might have violated Article 36 paragraph (1) letter b of the Ombudsman Law and Article 5 letter a of the Ombudsman Regulation No. 48 of 2020,” the Petitioner said.

He asserted that Article 10 of the Ombudsman Law was in violation of his rights granted by Article 27 paragraph (1) (“All citizens shall have equal status before the law and the government and hold without exemption the law and the government in esteem.”) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He emphasized that all Indonesian citizens are equal before the law, thus no individual or institution should be immune from the law, or to avoid arrest, detention, interrogation, prosecution, or lawsuit even while performing their duty or authority.

He also emphasized that the Ombudsman’s use of Article 10 of the Ombudsman Law to terminate his association’s case in the Jakarta state administrative court had violated his right to justice and equality before the law.

In the petitum, he requested that the Court declare Article 10 of the Ombudsman Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if interpreted to mean “In executing its duties and jurisdiction, the Ombudsman shall not be arrested, detained, interrogated, prosecuted, or sued before the court despite having violated the law.”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to elaborate his status. “Are you here as an individual or on behalf of the Maha Bidik Indonesia association? Elaborate this since in the petition you mention yourself sometimes as an individual, other times as chairman of the Maha Bidik association. If you’re [representing] the association, there must be a basis for it. Is there a statute/bylaw and what are the association’s community service activities? Please elaborate,” she said.

She also advised him to elaborate on his constitutional impairment. “The rights must be clear. What are the rights granted by the Constitution that have been harmed? Are they actual or potential?” she asked.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioner to elaborate on the contradiction between the norm being petitioned and the Constitution. “Your arguments should be represented in the backgrounds of the petition,” he said.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/12/2022 07:25 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.

---