Jakarta, cartitleloans Indonesia
–
Constitutional Court
(MK) states
Deputy Minister
prohibited from dual positions as commissioners or directors in state or private companies.
This was contained in the case decision Number: 128/PUU-XXIII/2025 submitted by Advocate Viktor Santoso Tandiasa related to the testing of material Article 23 of Law Number 39 of 2008 concerning State Ministry.
“Amar Decision: 1. Given the petition of Petitioner I for part,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo when reading the verdict at the Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Thursday (8/28).
The Constitutional Court stated that Article 23 of the Law of the State Ministry, State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Year 2008 Number 166, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4916 was contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and did not have a conditional legal force, as long as it was not interpreted:
Ministers and deputy ministers are prohibited from concurrently as:
a.Other state officials in accordance with statutory regulations
b.Commissioners or Directors in state or private companies;or
c.The leadership of the organization financed from the State Budget and/or Regional Revenue Budget.
Judge member Enny Nurbaningsih said the Petitioner’s argument relating to the prohibition on the dual position for the Deputy Minister of Casu as Commissioners of the BUMN company was apparently in line with the norms of Article 33 letter b of Law Number 19 of 2003 concerning BUMN.
Even though the norms of Article 33 of the SOE Law have been deleted with Law Number 1 of 2025 concerning the Third Amendment to Law Number 19 of 2003 concerning BUMN, without the Court intends to assess the constitutionality (formal and material) of Law 1/2025, it turns out that the substance referred to is still accommodated or maintained that members of the Commissioners are prohibited from holding double positions as, “b.19/2003 and Article 27B letter b of Law 1/2025).
Within a reasonable reasoning, the laws and regulations referred to one of which is Law 39/2008.
“Therefore, it is important for the Court to assert that in the a quo decision regarding the prohibition on dual positions for deputy ministers, including the commissioners, as well as the minister to focus on handling ministries,” said Enny.
“Meanwhile, to run the commissioner position also requires a concentration of time,” he continued.
In order to avoid legal vacuum and uncertainty in the implementation of norms Article 23 of Law 39/2008 a quo that has been interpreted by the Court, in Casu to the phrase “Deputy Minister”, the Constitutional Court gave a grace period for the government to make adjustments to the provisions of the prohibition of the deputy minister’s position.
The Constitutional Court considers a period of adjustment for a maximum of 2 years after the a quo decision is spoken.
This decision was colored by different opinions or dissenting opinions of two constitutional judges namely Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Arsul Sani.
In the context of a quo case, Daniel Yusmic views the establishment of the Court in Decision Number: 80/PUU-XVII/2019 still needs to be maintained, it should not need to be formulated in the verdict.
While Arsul Sani basically stated that the Court should need to implement a due process of a deliberative and participatory law testing case by listening to information from the law forming and the affected parties.
This case was tested quickly by the Constitutional Court, only through two sessions and without a plenary session to listen to the statements of the government or the DPR.
(Ryn/gil)
[Gambas: cartitleloans video]
Read More: VIDEO: The hunger crisis in Gaza, residents of the food aid trucks
Read More: Dukcapil ’ S Latest Data, more than 130 million people of Indonesia have not been married
