Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat delivering the Court’s opinion at the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages, Wednesday (8/30/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) denied the material judicial review petition of Article 29 letter g, Article 51 letter g, and Article 64 letter h of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages on Wednesday afternoon, August 30, 2023. The petition No. 76/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Mahmudi, a village apparatus.
“[The Court] rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices.
Delivering the Court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said that village apparatus holds a highly strategic position, so people who not only can implement their duties and function professionally and with integrity are expected to fill in that position, but also be accepted, trusted, and respected by villagers and whose legitimacy is recognized by the community to exercise village government for the sake of the community’s welfare, order, and advancement. Therefore, in supporting the village chief to exercise their duties and authority, village apparatuses must be independent, professional, and impartial in providing public services.
Neutrality is an important principle in public service, governance, and development and must be applied by government employees, government officials, and state officials in order to work professionally. The Great Dictionary of the Indonesian Language (Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia or KBBI) defines it as the state and attitude of not taking sides. This means to be free from conflict of interest, intervention, and interference in performing duties and authority, to be fair, objective, and impartial. Similarly, neutrality in politics means not being involved nor partial to the interest of any political parties.
“In the effort to maintain neutrality in the office, village chiefs and apparatuses must be free from the influence of any political parties in order to ensure unity and to guarantee good public services through the concentration of attention, mind, and work in one’s duties,” Justice Arief explained.
Neutrality Is Imperative
Justice Arief added that, as a consequence of the authority of the village apparatus as the support to the village chief, there must be rules on political neutrality, i.e. the prohibition from being a party executive, as set forth in Article 51 letter g of Law No. 6 of 2014. Their involvement in party management would lead to issues in exercising village governance. There would likely be partiality to a certain political party, which could manifest in policymaking and village expenditures. This would potentially lead to envy, which in turn would create division among village apparatuses and cause them to neglect the village community.
In exercising village governance, Justice Arief added, officials who are neutral and free from any political interference are imperative, so restriction in political involvement should be imposed on village chiefs and village apparatuses. Such a restriction on village chiefs, village apparatuses, and members of the village consultative body do not constitute restriction on the freedom of association and assembly in any political party. Instead, it protects the more important public interest. Nevertheless, the restriction is not absolute, since they can still use their political right to vote in elections.
In addition, Justice Arief said, normatively based on legal principle, Law No. 6 of 2014 is lex specialis while the Political Party Law is lex generalis. Therefore, special provisions push aside general provisions (lex specialis derogate legi generalis), so such a restriction is not a form of discrimination.
Based on those legal considerations, the Petitioner’s argument of violation of the freedom of association and assembly due to the prohibition against being party executives for village apparatuses as set forth in Article 51 letter g of Law No. 6 of 2014 is legally groundless.
“Therefore, based on those legal considerations, the Court holds that Article 51 letter g of Law No. 6 of 2014 has provided freedom of association and assembly, freedom of verbal and written expression, and the right to apply oneself to fight for rights collectively to develop the community, nation, and state as guaranteed by Article 28 and Article 28C paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. As such, the Petitioner’s petition is legally groundless in its entirety,” Justice Arief emphasized.
Also read:
Village Apparatus Challenges Provisions on Political Party Membership
Petitioner Revises Petition on Political Party Membership for Village Apparatuses
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner virtually conveyed that his constitutional rights, which are guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution, had been violated by the provision that puts prohibition on becoming political party executive members in Article 29 letter g, Article 51 letter g, and Article 64 letter h of the Village Law. He believed that he had the right to develop himself by meeting his basic needs, through education as well as knowledge, technology, art, and culture, in order to improve his living and for the welfare of humankind. He added that he also had the right to fight for his right to collectively develop the community, nation, and state.
The Petitioner emphasized that he had received unfair, discriminatory treatment and had not been given equal opportunity in government by the provisions of Article 29 letter g, Article 51 letter g, and Article 64 letter h of the Village Law because even president, vice president, ministers, House of Representatives (DPR) and Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) members, and heads of regions were not prohibited from being political party members/executives, while village apparatuses were. Therefore, in the petitum, he requested that the Court declare Article 29 letter g, Article 51 letter g, and Article 64 letter h of the Village Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.
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.
Wednesday, August 30, 2023 | 15:54 WIB 175