Statement of Experts Too Late, Test of ASN Law Delayed

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a further trial of Article 87 paragraph (2) and Article 87 paragraph (4) letters B and D of Law Number 5 Year 2014 concerning the State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law), on Wednesday (1/16/2019 ) Initially the agenda of case hearings Number 87, 88 and 91 / PUU-XVI / 2019 was to hear the statement of the Petitioners’ experts. However, the agenda was postponed because the Expert was late in entering the CV and written statement.

Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman stated the receipt of the CV and written statement of the Expert must be submitted at least two days before the trial. Whereas the case applicant Number 91 / PUU-XVI / 2018 sent on Tuesday at 19.57 WIB via email. “This means that expert information cannot be heard today. “Even if you want to be heard, in the upcoming session or statement, it is only written information,” he explained.

Tjoejoe S. Hernanto as the attorney stated that he still wanted the information from the Petitioner to be heard at the trial. On this basis, Anwar said the trial was postponed and resumed on Tuesday January 29, 2019 at 11.00 WIB.

In the same trial, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna reminded the Petitioner of Case Number 87 / PUU-XVI / 2018 regarding the issue of legal standing . This is because the Constitutional Court received a letter from the Chairperson of the Korpri Zudan Arif Fakrulloh that the Applicant did not represent the organization.

“We have expressed that objection in the official hearing. Now it is up to you, will you respond later to the conclusion of the matter from the Petitioner. But that is part of what we will consider in the Court’s decision because of this objection letter, “he explained.

Previously, a case registered with Number 87 / PUU-XVI / 2018 was submitted by Hendrik. Then, five Petitioners submitted cases Number 88 / PUU-XVI / 2018, namely Fatah Yasin, Panca Setiadi, Nawawi, Nurlaila, and Djoko Budiono. The Petitioners argued that they were disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 87 paragraph (2) and Article 87 paragraph (4) of the ASN Law which regulates the dismissal of the ASN. Applicants who have been convicted postulate the word “can” in Article 87 paragraph (2) of the ASN Law can lead to the implementation of subjective norms based on implementing the law. Furthermore, according to the Petitioner, the phrase “committing a criminal offense with a minimum imprisonment of 2 (two) years and a criminal offense committed by planning” in Article 87 paragraph (4) letter d does not contain a specific classification of criminal acts.a quo . The Petitioner concluded, that all the norms that the Petitioners had basically contradicted with “Principles of Implementation”, “Principle of Clarity of Formulation”, “Principle of Justice”, “Principle of Equality in Law and Government”, and “Principle of Certainty and Legal Certainty.”

Meanwhile, the case applicant Number 88 / PUU-XVI / 2018, feels disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 87 paragraph (4) letter b of the ASN Law which is considered to contain legal uncertainty because it prevents the Applicant from being active, and obtains equal opportunities in the government. For this reason, the Petitioners requested that the two a quo articles be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution. (Arif Satriantoro / LA)