Principal Petitioner Belly Respati withdrawing the petition virtually at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages, Thursday (3/9/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Thursday, March 9, 2023 | 15:43 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages and the Home Affairs Minister’s Regulation (Permendagri) No. 67 of 2017 on the Amendment to the Home Affairs Minister’s Regulation No. 83 of 2015 on the Appointment and Dismissal of Village Apparatuses on Thursday, March 9, 2023. The petition No. 23/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Belly Respati, head of Pekon Bumi Waras Village, Way Krui Subdistrict, West Pesisir Regency, Lampung Province. The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah (panel chair), Arief Hidayat, and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.
The Petitioner argued that Article 5 paragraphs (6) of Permendagri No. 67 of 2017 (“The written recommendation of the subdistrict head or other designation as referred to in paragraph (5) shall be based on the requirements for the dismissal of the village apparatus.”) is against Article 26 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Village Law (1. The Head of Village shall be in charge of implementing the Village Government, the Village Development, the village community development and empowerment of villagers; 2. In carrying out duties as referred to in Article (1), the Head of Village shall be authorized: a. to lead the implementation of the Village Government; b. appoint and dismiss village apparatuses.”).
The Petitioner alleged that due to the Permendagri, the head of the subdistrict was authorized to dismiss village apparatuses, since a village head would need their written recommendation to do so when, in fact, Article 26 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Village Law specifies that it was not needed, given that village apparatuses are responsible for assisting the village head.
“It is clear that in the Village Law, the appointment of village apparatuses is the village chief’s prerogative. However, the Permendagri was issued, which stipulates that a subdistrict chief may give a written recommendation for the appointment or dismissal of state apparatuses. I believe this is against the Village Law. This means that if the subdistrict chief can give a written recommendation, then it is their prerogative. However, in a village it [should] be interpreted as the village chief, not the subdistrict chief,” he said virtually through video conference from the University of Lampung (Unila).
Not Court’s Jurisdiction
Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said that based on the Constitution, the Constitutional Court has the authority to conduct a review of laws against the 1945 Constitution. Meanwhile, the Petitioner wished for the review of a Permendagri and the Village Law, the former of which is under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. He advised that the Petitioner consult a constitutional law expert, review the petition and regulations relating to the procedure for reviewing the norms in question.
“In the Court’s procedural law, there is a certain format, legal standing, and the Petitioner can elaborate the constitutional rights up to the petitum. The Court is not authorized to review Permendagri,” he said.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul emphasized the need to consider that the norms being petitioned was under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the Petitioner should review Articles 7 and 8 of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking. Permendagri is under the Law, which is under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.
“The Petitioner can read the Supreme Court’s procedural law from Law No. 14 of 1985 or Law No. 3 of 2009 on how to file a material judicial review to the Supreme Court,” he explained.
Next, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah emphasized the different jurisdictions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. The Constitutional Court, he said, would not review any legislation under laws since it is not part of its jurisdiction.
“So, there is time for the Petitioner to reconsider and to withdraw the petition and file it to the Supreme Court. We have shown the right course and the Petitioner can then express the intention to the Constitutional Court’s Registrar’s Office,” he said.
After conveying the petition and listening to the justices’ recommendations, the Petitioner declared his stance before Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah adjourned the session. “After listening to the justices’ advice and understanding that the petition should have been filed to the Supreme Court, I hereby withdraw my petition,” he stated.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Tiara Agustina
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 3/10/2023 22:00 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.