Petitioners’ legal counsels at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board, Tuesday (2/7/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Tuesday, February 7, 2023 | 15:32 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Article 18 letter c of Law No. 15 of 2006 on the Audit Board (BPK) on Tuesday, February 7, 2023. The case No. 9/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Patuan Siahaan, Tyas Muharto, and Poltak Manullang, retired civil servants of the Prosecution Office. The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra, Suhartoyo, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.
Article 18 letter c of the BPK Law reads, “BPK’s Chairman, Deputy Chairman, and/or Members shall be honorably discharged from their positions based on a Presidential Decree upon the recommendation of BPK in the event of the following: c. having reached 67 (sixty-seven) years of age.”
The Petitioners’ legal counsel Kores Tambunan stated the article contradicted Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners believe the phrase “having reached 67 (sixty-seven) years of age” have resulted in the dismissal of BPK members when they reach the age of 67 even though they hold office for five years and can be reelected for one more term. In other words, BPK members can hold office for no longer than two terms. Such a condition is detrimental to the Petitioners’ constitutional rights because they are unable to register as candidates of BPK members as stipulated in Article 13 of the BPK Law.
“The enactment of the a quo article has created confusion over the provisions relating to the requirements for prospective members of the BPK in Article 13 of the BPK Law. The duties and responsibilities of BPK members has nothing to do with the phrase ‘having reached 67 (sixty-seven) years of age,’ so this age limit is contrary to Article 28C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution,” said Tambunan in the plenary courtroom alongside legal counsels Eben Ezer Sitorus, Mangasi Harianja, and Timbul Tambunan.
In response to this petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo suggested to elaborate the Petitioners’ constitutional impairment by elaborating their legal standing and to make argument to support the notion that provisions on age limit are within the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction. So far, he revealed, the Court has asserted that such provisions are the jurisdiction of legislators.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked whether the Petitioners had registered as candidates for BPK members, which can be evidence to strengthen their legal standing.
Next, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra expected the Petitioners to list their current jobs to show the relevance of their potential constitutional impairment.
“It must be explained why the Petitioners have legal standing, because some of them are over 70 years old. Elaboration on this matter is important,” he said.
Before adjourning the session, Justice Saldi announced that the Petitioners must submit the revised petition no later than Monday, February 20, 2023. The next hearing schedule will be informed by the Registrar’s Office.
Writer : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 2/9/2023 08:10 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.