Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams opening the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court, Tuesday (12/13/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, December 13, 2022 | 16:18 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary 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 Tuesday, December 13, 2022. The petition No. 121/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Syamsudin Noer and Triyono Edy Budhiarto (Petitioners I and II), civil servants (PNS) who work as case registration administrator and deputy registrar at the Constitutional Court (MK). They 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.”

Before Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Suhartoyo, on behalf of the Petitioners, Muhammad Zen Al-Faqih conveyed the legal fact relating to the difference between the retirement ages of the registrars in the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court.

“In the petition [we] have explained the legal reasons and we have made tables that form the basis for why we filed this petition. We hope that this petition will be granted and the Petitioners’ constitutional rights will be protected. We have detailed our requests in the petitum,” he said.

The Petitioners asserted that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court are equal, as referred to in the 1945 Constitution, and have similar sources of jurisdiction. “The Registrar’s Office of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, we believe, are the same, since their jurisdictions come from a Law,” he stressed.

In the petition, the Petitioners argued that their constitutional rights had been harmed. When becoming a substitute registrar, a deputy registrar, or a chief registrar in the secretariat-general of the Constitutional Court in the future, Petitioner I will not be able to retire at the same age as those in the Supreme Court. meanwhile, Petitioner II will not be able to retire at the same age as deputy registrars in the Supreme Court. Similarly, if he becomes a chief registrar in the future, he will not be able to retire at the same age as the chief registrar in the Supreme Court. This is despite the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court being judicial institutions that have equal positions according to Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners believe the norm had discriminated against them on the matter of retirement age. Therefore, they requested that the Court declare Article 7A paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if interpreted to mean that chief registrars and deputy registrars retire at 67 and substitute registrars at 65.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih requested that the Petitioners strengthen their argument on the constitutional impairment due to the ambiguity and discrimination. “When discrimination is used as an indicator, it will relate to the posita. Please take into account that it is true that Article 24 states that the executors of the judicial power are the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, but you can see the process for filling the registrar vacancies in the Supreme Court, because it depends on the justices. So, that’s the difference with the Constitutional Court. Please explain the connection between the loss of constitutional rights and this discrimination. Please explain the conditions for the constitutional rights,” she said.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo had a similar advice. He asked the Petitioners to explain the legal standing of each of them.

“In the part on legal standing, explain the loss of Petitioner I, whether it is actual or potential. For similar petitions on retirement age of registrars that were granted, what was granted, what was not. Make a comparison, since although Petitioner I has been a substitute registrar, in order to be a substitute registrar or a deputy registrar, the condition must be explained to assert legal standing. If [the loss] is potential, how it would be. Meanwhile, Petitioner II is an active deputy registrar in the Constitutional Court. Of course, it cannot be separated from the provisions on legal acts be it personally or in the office, when using that right in our outside of a court, whether there should be permission from the supervisor or not, that must be explained,” he said.

Before concluding the session, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams gave the Petitioners 14 workdays to revise the petition. They are to submit it by December 26, 2022 at 14:30 WIB.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/15/2022 18:09 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.

---