Sidang Perkara Nomor 21/PUU-XXIII/2025. Senin, 5 Mei 2025.

Summary

In this Constitutional Court hearing, applicant Juhaidi Rizali Ruringkon challenges the legality of deputy ministers holding dual roles as commissioners in state-owned enterprises, citing past rulings that prohibit such dual positions. He requests the Court to clarify that the term 'minister' in Article 23 of the Law on State Ministries should include deputy ministers, making the prohibition apply to both. The applicant stresses the importance of enforcing previous Constitutional Court decisions to avoid legal uncertainty. The session concludes with the panel agreeing to forward the request for further deliberation and updates.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Constitutional Court session concerns case number 21/PUU/data 23, Roman G 2025, involving a legal challenge regarding dual positions held by deputy ministers.
• 😀 The applicant, Juhaidi Rizali Ruringkon, argues that the government's failure to implement the Constitutional Court's decision from 2019 creates legal uncertainty and injustice.
• 😀 The applicant emphasizes that the word 'minister' in Article 23 of the Law on State Ministries should include deputy ministers, prohibiting them from holding concurrent positions in state-owned enterprises (BUMN).
• 😀 The issue revolves around deputy ministers holding dual roles, such as serving as commissioners or supervisory board members in state-owned enterprises, which the applicant contends violates Constitutional Court rulings.
• 😀 The applicant requests a decision declaring that the word 'minister' in Article 23 of the Law on State Ministries is unconstitutional unless interpreted to include deputy ministers.
• 😀 The Court is reminded that Constitutional Court decisions are final, binding, and should eliminate any ambiguity or misinterpretation regarding the prohibition of dual positions for deputy ministers.
• 😀 The applicant highlights that deputy ministers are career officials and not members of the cabinet, which creates inconsistencies with their dual positions in other roles.
• 😀 The applicant also points out the legal contradiction between the President's authority to appoint deputy ministers and the provisions that prohibit them from holding additional positions.
• 😀 The applicant submits written evidence and requests the Court to issue a ruling declaring that deputy ministers cannot hold concurrent positions as commissioners in state-owned enterprises.
• 😀 The hearing concludes with the panel deciding to forward the case for deliberation and further developments will be communicated to the applicant.

Q & A

What is the main purpose of the trial mentioned in the transcript?

The main purpose of the trial is to review and convey the applicant's revised application concerning the prohibition on dual positions for deputy ministers, specifically addressing legal uncertainties surrounding the implementation of the Constitutional Court's previous decisions.

Who is the applicant in this case and what is his position on the matter?

The applicant is Juhaidi Rizali Ruringkon, a citizen who frequently litigates at the Constitutional Court. He seeks justice and clarity regarding the implementation of the Constitutional Court's decision prohibiting dual positions for deputy ministers, particularly in relation to holding concurrent roles as commissioners in state-owned or private companies.

What is the significance of the Constitutional Court decision number 80 of 2019 in this case?

Constitutional Court decision number 80 of 2019 is central to the applicant’s case. It explicitly prohibited deputy ministers from holding concurrent positions in state-owned enterprises (BUMN). However, the applicant argues that the government has not implemented this decision effectively, causing legal uncertainty.

What does the applicant believe regarding the implementation of the Constitutional Court's decision?

The applicant believes that the failure to implement the Constitutional Court's decision is an act of defiance against the constitution, and that the government and relevant parties have disregarded the decision, causing legal confusion and injustice.

What does the applicant claim about the government’s stance on the dual position prohibition?

The applicant claims that the government and the DPR (House of Representatives) argue that the Constitutional Court's ruling prohibiting deputy ministers from holding dual positions is not legally binding, as the ruling did not explicitly state that the provisions were unconstitutional.

How does the applicant support the claim that dual positions for deputy ministers are prohibited?

The applicant supports this claim by citing the Constitutional Court's decision number 79 of 2011, which discusses the need to regulate the position of deputy ministers to avoid legal uncertainty. He further points to the fact that the law prohibits deputy ministers from holding positions in BUMN, and that this should apply universally.

What is the applicant's position on the number of deputy ministers holding concurrent positions?

The applicant initially states that there are nine deputy ministers holding concurrent positions in state-owned enterprises, but later corrects this to thirteen. He highlights this issue to illustrate the ongoing violation of the Constitutional Court's decision.

What legal argument does the applicant make regarding the President's authority to appoint deputy ministers?

The applicant argues that the President has the authority to appoint deputy ministers based on the workload of a ministry. However, he contends that deputy ministers should not hold concurrent positions in state-owned enterprises, as this conflicts with constitutional and legal provisions, particularly in terms of dual positions.

What is the applicant requesting the Constitutional Court to decide?

The applicant requests that the Constitutional Court declare that the term 'minister' in Article 23 of the Law on State Ministries should include 'deputy minister,' and that the prohibition on holding dual positions applies to both ministers and deputy ministers. He seeks the court's ruling to affirm this interpretation and to ensure its implementation.

What additional legal provisions does the applicant reference in his argument?

The applicant references several legal provisions, including the State-Owned Enterprises Law, the Public Service Law, and others, to support his claim that holding dual positions is prohibited and to demonstrate the broader legal context in which the issue arises. He also discusses the regulations around dual positions in state ministries and BUMN.