The Petitioners’ legal counsels after a judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2024 on Villages, Thursday (10/3/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The President/Government waived their right to testify at a judicial review hearing of the Village Law in the Constitutional Court (MK). The statement was made by the President/Government’s proxy, the Ministry of Law and Human Rights’ coordinator for the settlement of legislative disputes on politics, law, and security Purwoko at the hearing set to present the House of Representatives’ and the President’s testimonies on Thursday, October 24, 2024.
“As the President’s proxy, we agreed to waive the right to testify, Your Honors. We have considered this from various perspectives,” he said in the plenary courtroom.
However, he did not detail the reason. He asserted that the reason could not be presented as it is the decisions of officials within the Ministry of Home Affairs.
“So, several aspects have been considered, and upon consideration, [the President] would rather leave it to the Court. So, [the President] leaves this entirely to the Court to hand down a just decision,” Purwoko said.
Chief Justice Suhartoyo said the decision to waive the right to testify in court should be conveyed by the authorized official, who has the authority to testify. This is because the Court also has a responsibility to justice seekers. Article 41 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law stipulates that for examination purposes, the constitutional justices shall summons the litigating parties to provide necessary testimonies and/or ask relevant state institutions for written testimonies related to the petition.
Under Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court may ask for testimonies and/or transcripts of meetings related to the case being examined from the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), House of Representatives (DPR), Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and/or the President.
“The Constitutional Court has the discretion to request [for testimonies]. However, the Constitutional Court made request. This should be conveyed to the authorized officials. The Court as a constitutional jurisdiction [summonsed the President to testify] because of the citizens’ constitutional rights. This should be understood. It is not for the justices’ interest,” the chief justice said.
Article 53 of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 stipulates that the President’s testimony be presented by a minister who implements government affairs in the field of law, a minister, a minister-level official, or an intermediate high leadership or an echelon I official. Therefore, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stressed, the Court wished that the President/Government’s decision not to testify before the Court be conveyed in writing by the authorized official so that it can be accountable to the public, especially the Petitioners. The next hearing will commence on Monday, November 11, 2024 at 10:30 WIB.
Also read:
Nearing the End of Term, Village Heads Ask For a Prolong Period
Petitioners of Village Law Asks to Prioritize Their Petition
The Petitioners of case No. 107/PUU-XXIV/2024—the Association of United Village Associations and three village heads (Petitioner I-IV)—feel aggrieved because Article 118 letter e of Law No. 3 of 2024 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 6 of 2014 on Villages does not mention that the terms of office of village ending in November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024 are also extended.
They believe the Village Law should accommodate a two-year extension for village heads whose terms of office end in November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024. However, the a quo norm only mentions that village heads whose term of office ends in February 2024 can be extended. Therefore, there is no legal certainty for the Petitioners.
The Petitioners allege that the problem occurred due to the Minister of Home Affairs interpretation of the a quo norm. The Minister, through Circular Letter No. 100.3.5.5/2625/SJ dated June 5, 2024, did not interpret the norm to include village heads whose terms of office ended in November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024.
As a result of this circular letter, the Petitioners stated that they felt constitutionally harmed because the village heads whose terms of office ended in November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024 did not receive a term extension. In fact, it was repeatedly emphasized by the speaker of the House of Representatives (DPR) that the a quo article refers to village heads whose terms of office ended in November 2023, December 2023, January 2024, and February 2024.
They argue that the House speaker had had a coordination meeting with by the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Director-General of Legislation of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, the Deputy for Legislation and Legal Administration of the Ministry of State Secretariat, the head of the House’s Board of Expertise, and two village organizations, APDESI (Indonesian Association of Village Administrations) and AKSI (Association of Indonesian Village Heads). At the meeting, it was agreed that Article 118 letter e would accommodate village heads whose terms of office would end in November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024 while not being charged for any crime or resigning.
However, on January 14, 2023, the Minister of Home Affairs issued the Circular Letter No. 100.3.5.5/244/SJ on the implementation of village head elections during the simultaneous general and regional elections in 2024, which basically stated that village head elections could be held before November 1, 2023 or after the completion of the 2024 general and regional election stages. With the circular, village heads whose terms of office ended in November, December 2023, and January 2024 could not participate in the village head election, so Petitioner I requested that the Minister provide confirmation to regents and mayors so that village head elections be accelerated before November 2023 on the grounds that there were simultaneous election stages, but the Minister’s confirmation to the regents or mayors did not work out, so it was detrimental to Petitioners II, III, and IV and 2,181 village heads whose terms of office ended in November 2023, December 2023, and January 2024.
In their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 118 letter e of Law No. 3 of 2024 (“Village Heads whose term of office ends in February 2024 may be extended in accordance with the provisions of this Law”) unconstitutional. They wishe that the article be interpreted as, “Village Heads whose terms of office ended in November 2023, December 2023, January 2024, and February 2024 may be extended in accordance with the provisions of this Law.”
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : N Rosi.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.
Thursday, October 24, 2024 | 12:24 WIB 118