Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, accompanied by Justice M. Guntur Hamzah and Justice Arsul Sani, leading the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Village on Monday (7/29/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — A constitutional law student of UIN Sayyid Ali Rahmatullah Tulungagung, Moch. Imam Djauhari has filed a material judicial review of Article 53 paragraph (2) letter a of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages against the 1945 Constitution (UUD 1945) to the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for Case No. 78/PUU-XXII/2024, presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, with Justice M. Guntur Hamzah and Justice Arsul Sani, took place in the Panel Courtroom on Monday, July 29, 2024.
Attending the hearing online, the petitioner said Article 53 paragraph (2) letter a of the Village Law is in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3); Article 28C paragraph (2); Article 28D paragraphs (1), (2), and (3); Article 28H paragraph (2); and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. It reads, “The Village Apparatuses shall be dismissed as referred to in paragraph (1) letter c because: a. they have reached 60 (sixty) years of age.”
The Petitioner believes that the contested article harms him because it makes it difficult to become a village official and to contribute to village development due to the unclear regulation of village officials’ terms. The Petitioner argues that village governance is essentially a microcosm of the Indonesian state, thus making the village a key political arena for interactions between the community and those in power. Consequently, the governance system should be structured similarly to the central government system.
The lack of specific regulation regarding the terms of office for village officials allows them to potentially serve for life. Additionally, this situation can lead to other issues, such as an imbalance of power, since there are no limits on their terms. This imbalance can affect the performance of the village head and create a seniority issue, where older and longer-serving village officials may overshadow a newly appointed village head.
“To declare that Article 53 Paragraph (2) letter a of Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages, which states ‘‘a. has reached the age of 60 (sixty) years,’’ is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and lacks binding legal force unless interpreted as ‘‘a. has reached the age of 60 (sixty) years or the end of the term of the relevant village head,” said Imam reading the petition’s demand.
Justices’ Advice
In the panel’s advice, Justice M. Guntur Hamzah noted that the Petitioner, who is a student, should clarify how the issue of village officials relates to the violation of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights. Additionally, the Petitioner must explain the difference between termination at the end of a term and retirement.
“This term needs to be defined, whether termination at retirement age is the same as retirement or not. This needs to be carefully examined. Is 60 years old the condition for ending someone’s term as a village official or for retirement? The Petitioner wants to link this with the condition of termination by adding a clause about the end of the village head’s term. This needs careful consideration,” advised Justice Guntur.
Meanwhile, Justice Arsul provided notes on the Petitioner’s application concerning village officials, stating that the specific type of village official in question needs to be clarified. Additionally, regarding the allegations of potential corruption or other criminal offenses related to the term of office, the Petitioner must explain the connections. Since the regulations on such criminal offenses are already clear and detailed, “Please further clarify the provisions and the relevance of these allegations to the Petitioner’s legal position,” stated Justice Arsul.
Moreover, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi advised that the Petitioner's arguments regarding the interpretation of the contested article have not yet been explained in terms of how it conflicts with the 1945 Constitution.
“So, in the revision, the formulation of this article should be clear because the term limit is already specified as 60 years. In fact, advancing the request as the Petitioner has proposed could potentially harm the Petitioner. Please explain this so that the Court can be confident in the Petitioner’s request,” stated Justice Saldi.
At the end of the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition and must submit it no later than Monday, August 12 at 14:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office, after which the petition revision hearing can be scheduled.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator : Naomi Andrea Zebua/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.
Monday, July 29, 2024 | 15:31 WIB 62