Chief Justice Anwar Usman and Chief Registrar Muhidin at the material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court, Thursday (2/2/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Thursday, February 1, 2023 | 13:23 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The material judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court continued on Thursday, February 1, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The third session was supposed to present the House of Representatives’ (DPR) and the Government’s testimonies, but the Government requested a delay as they were unprepared to testify.

“The House is indisposed. The President’s proxy [sent] a letter [to state] their unpreparedness. In this case, there are relevant parties. The Court had convened and accepted the relevant parties’ requests. The next hearing schedule will be informed later on. The session will be adjourned [and resume] on Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 11:00 WIB to hear the testimonies of the Government/President, the House, and the Relevant Parties,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman announced.

Also read:

Deputy Registrars Challenge Provision on Retirement Age of Registrars

Deputy Registrars Revise Petition on Retirement Age of Registrars

The preliminary hearing for the case No. 121/PUU-XX/2022 took place on Tuesday, December 13, 2022. 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.”

The conveyed the legal fact relating to the difference between the retirement ages of the registrars in the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court and asserted that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court are equal, as referred to in the 1945 Constitution, and have similar sources of jurisdiction.

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.

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

Translation uploaded on 2/6/2023 20:58 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.

---