Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict for the material judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages, Thursday (3/30/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared a material judicial review hearing of Article 39 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages inadmissible. The Decision No. 15/PUU-XXI/2023 was read out on Thursday, March 30, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The petition was filed by Eliadi Hulu, a resident of Ononamolo Tumula Village, Alasa Subdistrict, North Nias Regency, and 11 other individual petitioners.

“[The Court] declares the petition of Petitioners II, III, IV, VII, IX, and X with respect to Article 39 paragraphs (1) and (2) and the Elucidation to Article 39 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6 of 2014 on Villages inadmissible; declares the petition of Petitioners V, VI, VIII, XI, and XII relating to Article 39 paragraphs (1) and (2) and with the Elucidation to Article 39 of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6 of 2014 on Villages inadmissible; declare the petition of Petitioner I in relation to the judicial review of the Elucidation to Article 39 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6 of 2014 on Villages inadmissible; rejects the petition of Petitioner I for the rest and the remainder,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court asserted that the 1945 Constitution only explicitly regulates the terms for several public offices. That of village chiefs is not regulated in the 1945 Constitution, but in a law. The distinction is inseparable from the characteristic of village government within the administration structure of Indonesia.

“The term of a village chief in Article 39 paragraphs (1) and (2) of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages is six years with reelection up to three times. In other words, one can be a village chief for up to 18 years. According to logical reasoning, such limitation is not only meant to allow for regeneration of leadership at all levels of government, including at the village level, but also to prevent abuse of power due to a prolonged position of power [vide Constitutional Court Decision No. 42/PUU-XIX/2021],” Justice Enny explained.

The Court asserted that any change in the provisions of village chiefs’ tenure greatly depends on the influencing philosophical, juridical, and sociological factors at the time the provisions were made. In other words, Justice Enny continued, if at any time the legislatures believe that by taking into account the development of society there is a need to limit the tenure of village chiefs, including by determining the periodization, which may be different from previous provisions, it cannot necessarily be interpreted as contrary to the 1945 Constitution as long as the considerations for making such restrictions do not contain things that are prohibited by the 1945 Constitution. The tenure of village chiefs and those of other public officials are the legislatures’ open legal policies.

Therefore, it was irrelevant to equate the tenure of village chiefs and those of other public officials, including those of the president and vice president and heads of regions. Therefore, the argument by Petitioner I on the Elucidation to Article 39 of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages on the village chiefs’ tenure that must be limited to five years and reelection up to two times based on the Constitution was legally groundless.

The Court further asserted that Article 39 of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages was not against the principles of a rule of law as referred to in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution and had provided fair legal certainty as guaranteed in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Also read:

Provision on Tenure of Village Heads Challenged

Petitioners Increased, Petition on Village Head Revised

At the preliminary hearing on site at the Court, the Petitioner asserted that the enactment of Article 39 of the Village Law, which grant village heads a tenure of 6 years per term, had caused him constitutional impairment. Therefore, in his petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 39 paragraph (1) of the Village Law unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted “The village head shall hold office for 5 (five) years from the date of their inauguration” and “The village head as referred to in paragraph (1) can serve for a maximum of 2 (two) terms, either consecutively or non-consecutively.” consecutively.” 

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

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.

---