This Afternoon, The Constitutional Court Decides On The Lawsuit Of The Deputy Minister Of Multiple Positions As Commissioner

Constitutional Court (MK) Building in Jakarta. (ANTARA-Maria Rosari)

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) is scheduled to decide on a judicial review case that questions the practice of deputy ministers holding concurrent positions on Thursday in a trial for the pronunciation of decisions/decisions held starting at 13.30 WIB.

Two cases related to the deputy minister (wamen) of concurrent positions that the Constitutional Court will decide, among others, Case Number 128/PUU-XXIII/2025 which was requested by advocate Viktor Santoso Tandiasa and online motorcycle taxi driver Didi Supandi and Case Number 118/PUU-XXIII/2025 with legal activist applicant Ilham Fariduz Zaman and A. Fahrur Rozi.

"Acara: penyaman putusan/ketentuan. Tempat: Gedung I MK RI," demikian keterangan agenda sidang yang dikutip dari laman resmi MK, disitat Antara.

In Case 128, Viktor and Didi tested the constitutionality of Article 23 of Law Number 39 of 2008 concerning the Ministry of State. The article reads "Ministers are prohibited from holding concurrent positions as: a. other state officials are in accordance with statutory regulations; b. commissioners or directors of state companies or private companies; or c. organizational leaders financed from the APBN and/or APBD."

Both questioned the phrase "minister is prohibited from holding concurrent positions" and asked the Constitutional Court to reinterpret the article by adding the phrase deputy minister' so that the provisions for banning concurrent positions in Article 23 of the State Ministry Law apply to ministers and deputy ministers.

Meanwhile, in Case 118, Ilham and Fahrur tested Article 23 of the State Ministry Law and Article 27B and Article 56B of Law Number 19 of 2003 concerning SOEs.

Similar to Viktor and Didi's petition, Ilham and Fahrur asked Article 23 of the State Ministry of State Law to be added with the phrase "deputy minister" so that the deputy minister would not be separated from the qualification of the provisions for prohibiting concurrent positions.

As for Article 27B of the BUMN Law, it prohibits concurrent positions of the BUMN board of commissioners, while Article 56B of the BUMN Law regulates the prohibition of concurrent positions of the SOE supervisory board.

According to Fahrur and Ilhan, the two articles have not provided rigid and explicit qualifications regarding what positions are prohibited from being occupied simultaneously by the board of commissioners and supervisory board of SOEs.

This condition is different from the rules prohibiting concurrent positions for the board of directors of BUMN which are regulated in Articles 15B and 43D of the BUMN Law.

The fundamental difference, namely the supervisory board and the board of commissioners, is not prohibited from concurrently holding structural and functional positions in ministries/agencies of the central government and local governments like the prohibition against the board of directors.

In addition, the supervisory board and the BUMN board of commissioners are also not prohibited from concurrently managing political parties, legislative candidates, legislative members, regional head candidates, regional deputy candidates, regional heads, and/or deputy regional heads or other positions that can cause conflicts of interest.

Therefore, Article 27B and Article 56B of the BUMN Law are considered contrary to the principles of fair legal certainty.

In the petitum, the petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to equate the rules for prohibiting concurrent positions of the board of commissioners and supervisory boards of SOEs as prohibited by concurrent positions for the board of directors.

The two cases will be decided by the Court along with 11 other judicial review cases this afternoon.

"It's okay"