Director of the Legal Department of Bank Indonesia Imam Subarkah testifying at a judicial review hearing of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Openness, Tuesday (2/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — Recruitment strategies must take note of the aspects of quantity, quality, position, composition, and budget in a timely manner in accordance with Bank Indonesia’s strategy to support high performance sustainably. The recruitment of external human resources is carried out through PCPM (prospective assistant manager training) as well as the paths of general hire and special hire, which consists of pro-hire and experienced hire. The statement was made by Director of the Legal Department of Bank Indonesia Imam Subarkah at a hearing for case No. 132/PUU-XXI/2023. The petition was filed by Rega Felix, an advocate, who challenges Article 18 paragraph (2) of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Openness (KIP Law). The fourth hearing for the case took place on Tuesday, February 20, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The central bank Bank Indonesia (BI) and the Central Information Commission (KIP) testified for the Constitutional Court.
Imam said that the pro-hire path serves to recruit officers at the levels of assistant managers to assistant directors while the experienced hire path serves to recruit deputy directors. For the administration, potential and competency, psychological testing, health and psychiatry testing, and final selection stages in the recruitment process, BI can cooperate with universities and/or independent agencies.
“This cooperation is carried out by prioritizing transparency and accountability in the selection process of Bl employees with the aim of obtaining reliable and quality human resources. This is done to avoid interference from internal and external parties in the selection process so as to avoid corruption, collusion, and nepotism (KKN),” Imam stressed.
In May 2023, he revealed, BI opened public recruitment in the pro-hire path for Islamic fiqh manager on its website and in electronic media.
Public Information Openness
As a public agency that promotes public information openness, BI responded to the Petitioner’s request for recruitment information in letter No. 25/58/DKomGSPK/Srt/B dated August 9, 2023 by informing him that he can obtain the recruitment test results by coming to BI’s visitor center to see, listen to, and record said information in person.
BI informed him that the BI governor’s decree letter can only be given at employee inauguration. It also asserted that announcement on those who passed the pro-hire selection of 2023 had been posted on its website and via email. It stated that it could not provide the Petitioner with a list of names who had passed each of the selection stages since the information was already public and more information could disclose personal information as referred to in Article 17 letter h points 2, 4, and 5 of the KIP Law, i.e. (i) a person's history, condition and treatment, medication, physical and psychological health; (ii) evaluation results in relation to a person’s capability, intellect, and recommendation of ability; and/or (iii) a person’s personal records relating to a person’s formal and non-formal education.
If the Petitioner had been dissatisfied with BI’s explanation, he should have filed a complaint to settle public information dispute to the Central Information Commission, pursuant to Article 37 of the KIP Law.
No Legal Standing
Meanwhile, on behalf of the Central Information Commission as a Relevant Party, Donny Yoesgiantoro stated that the Petitioner does not have legal standing as per Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law in conjunction with Article 4 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 on the procedural law for the judicial review of laws, since he did not suffer any loss due to the enforcement of Article 18 paragraph (2) of the KIP Law. Instead, his loss was due to inaccurate implementation of the norm.
In addition, the Petitioner did not did not connect specific or potential constitutional rights that had been harmed in his failure to pass the selection to the a quo article. The Central Information Commission believes the Petitioner’s loss of constitutional rights had not been explained clearly and in detail, i.e. whether he was harmed because he could not find work or because he did not obtain the information that he wished to obtain.
“Thus, we believe that the Petitioner’s argument of loss can be declared obscure (obscuur libel), since there is no causality (causal verband) between Article 18 paragraph (2) of the KIP Law and the loss of constitutional rights—as regulated in he had suffered as Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 27 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (3), and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the Petitioner’s constitutional rights set forth in Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 27 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (3), and Article 28F were not violated due to the enforcement of Article 18 paragraph (2) of the KIP Law,” Donny explained.
Also read:
Advocate Questions Personal Data Openness for Public Offices
Advocate Asks for Clear Interpretation of Excluded Information in KIP Law
Govt: Exempted Public Information Can Be Disclosed under Some Conditions
The Petitioner asserts that Article 18 paragraph (2) of the KIP Law excludes personal data in the form of the family history and records, the results of evaluations related to a person’s capabilities, intellectuality, and competency recommendations, and/or records on a person’s personality related to formal and non-formal education as contained in Article 17 letter h of KIP Law for persons in public offices.
He revealed his experience applying for a public office at Bank Indonesia and being declared unqualified. He then asked for the list of applicants, his evaluation results, and the results of his health assessment, which the organizing committee refused. He was only given the results of his health assessment, so he could not obtain a right to refute the public information. “There are multiple interpretations of the causality between Article 18 paragraph (2) of the KIP Law and the Petitioner’s constitutional loss, because the exam results which the Petitioner requested were excepted from public information,” he said.
Therefore, in his petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare the phrase ‘a person’s position in public offices’ in Article 18 paragraph (2) of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Public Information Openness unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted as ‘including a list of names of participants in an open selection process in the context of filling in public offices,’” the Petitioner said.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha
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.
Tuesday, February 20, 2024 | 18:52 WIB 383