Legal counsel Mohammad Erzad Kasshiraghi (right) at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court, Wednesday (3/20/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) granted part of the judicial review petition of Article 132 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 1986 on the State Administrative Court (PTUN) as last amended by Law No. 51 of 2009. The Court interprets the a quo norm by excluding state administrative agencies or officials from the parties who can file a case review petition to the Supreme Court against a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force.
“[The Court] grants the Petitioner’s petition in part,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict of Decision No. 24/PUU-XXII/2024 on Wednesday, March 20, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.
Therefore, the Court has interpreted Article 132 paragraph (1) of the State Administrative Law as “Against a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force, a petition for case review may be filed to the Supreme Court, except by state administrative agencies or officials.”
Delivering the Court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah explained that if one is allowed to file a case review petition more than once for cases other than criminal cases, the case settlement would be long and might not even be settled, which would lead to legal uncertainty. This situation is contrary to the principle litis finiri oportet, that every case must have an end.
The Court asserts that the purpose of the establishment of the state administrative court is not only to provide protection of individual rights but also the rights of the community and to realize good governance. In this regard, Justice Guntur said, a state administrative agency or official as a government organ that issues state administrative decisions based on the authority vested in them or delegated to them has the obligation to make state administrative decisions and/or actions based on laws and regulations and general principles of good governance (AUPB).
In the event of a state administrative dispute, the state administrative agency or official is positioned as the defendant but has a higher position than the plaintiff due to their position as a government organ. Likewise, in terms of proof, which is the burden of the plaintiff, and in terms of the implementation of the decision, normatively the state administrative court decision is implemented by the state administrative agency or official who issued the decision or state administrative action supervised by the chairman of the state administrative court.
Justice Guntur said that, in general, state administrative decisions are implemented voluntarily by state administrative agencies or officials in accordance with the ruling of the state administrative court, considering that state administrative agencies or officials are state organs that should obey the law, including court decisions that have permanent legal force. So, any legal process against the decision or action of a state administrative agency or official which should end or be completed after being decided at the cassation level.
“The state administrative agency or official in question has the legal obligation (wettelijeke verplictingen) to directly follow up on or execute a state administrative court decision that has obtained permanent legal force,” he said.
If the losing state administrative agency or official was still given the opportunity to file a case review as stipulated in Article 132 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 1986, they would be turning away from the state administrative court’s function as an instrument of legal protection for citizens. This would be counterproductive and actually no longer in line with the original purpose of the establishment of the state administrative court, which is to provide protection to the public against the actions of government officials that harm citizens—either because these officials violate the law, abuse authority, or act arbitrarily in carrying out their duties and functions as state administrative agencies or officials.
Dissent
The nine constitutional justices did not rule the case unanimously. Chief Justice Suhartoyo and Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh had a dissenting opinion. In essence, Chief Justice Suhartoyo said, the Court should have rejected the petition.
“In essence, [we] disagree that the Court grant this petition; [we believe] the Court should reject the petition a quo,” he said.
In the dissent, the two justices highlighted several things that the Court should explore further. For example, the underlying reasons for granting a state administrative agency or official the right to file a case review, the statistics of case review in state administrative cases, which parties mostly use the right to file a case review, and the effectiveness of using the extraordinary legal remedy in the form of case review. By refusing to hold a plenary hearing that is open to the public, the court has closed the opportunity to obtain as much information as possible in deciding this petition. Moreover, limiting the right of state administrative agencies or officials to file a case review has fundamentally changed the state administrative judicial system.
Also read:
Homemaker Challenges Provision on Case Review in PTUN Law
Homemaker Revises Petition Against Provision on Case Review in PTUN Law
Homemaker Rahmawati Salam (Petitioner) had filed a state administrative dispute petition to the Jakarta stated administrative court against the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/head of the National Land Agency (ATR/BPN Minister). The court had granted part of the petition but the Minister then filed a petition requesting a case review. The Petitioner believed the case had been settled at the cassation level and thus the ruling can be executed since it has had permanent legal force. However, the ATR/BPN Minister delayed the execution citing he would file a case review petition.
In the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 132 paragraph (1) of the State Administrative Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “Against a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force, only individuals or civil legal entities may file a petition for case review to the Supreme Court.”
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Fauzan 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, March 20, 2024 | 16:50 WIB 155