Anwar Usman's Lawsuit In The Administrative Court Is Considered Jimly Salah Address

Former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Jimly Asshiddiqie spoke with the media crew at the Ministry of Transportation Building, Jakarta, Sunday (7/7/2024). ANTARA/Nadia Putri Rahmani

JAKARTA - Former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Jimly Asshiddiqie assessed that the lawsuit by Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman at the Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN) was 'wrong address' or wrong target. The “Objek assessed in court is a violation of the law. However, he did not violate the law, but violated the code of ethics. So, this is the object of the case having the wrong address, Jimly said when met at the Ministry of Transportation Building, Jakarta, as reported by Antara, Sunday, July 7. The answer was in response to the statement of the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) in a verdict hearing regarding the alleged violation of the Anwar Usman code of ethics which was held on Thursday, July 4. In the decision number 08/MKMK/L/05/2024, Anwar was declared not proven to have violated the code of ethics related to the alleged conflict of interest with a lawyer named Muhammad Rullyandi because of his capacity as a litigant in the PHPU Pileg and also an expert from Anwar's legal team in a lawsuit at the Administrative Court. As for the consideration of the decision read out by MKMK member Ridwan Mansyur, the ethics panel reiterated that the Administrative Court was not authorized to try the Constitutional Court's decision relating to Anwar Usman's dismissal from his position as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court. "The MKMK has expressly stated its establishment that the Administrative Court does not have the authority to try the Constitutional Court's decision which is a final ethical institution decision," he said. Ridwan explained that basically, the Constitutional Court cannot interfere with the absolute competence of the Administrative Court in examining and deciding Anwar's case regarding his dismissal. However, he said, in this context it was expressly stated that the Administrative Court was not authorized to try the decisions they issued. According to Jimly, it was the right statement because the true object of the case that could be tried in the Administrative Court was an administrative decision that contained legal elements. “ First, there is no Presidential Decree (Keppres) because if he is dismissed as a member then it is necessary for the Presidential Decree and that can be brought to justice. Meanwhile, he was dismissed as chairman, then there was an internal meeting to elect a new chairman, so there was no presidential decree, so he could not be used as the object of the case in the Administrative Court,” he said. In addition, said Jimly, the Administrative Court is a legal justice, while ethical violations are not legal matters. Therefore, according to him, Anwar's lawsuit at the Administrative Court is the wrong address. Previously, at the end of 2023, Anwar Usman filed a lawsuit with the main lawsuit asking Suhartoyo's appointment as the new chairman of the Constitutional Court to be declared invalid. "In the main case, grant the plaintiff's claim in its entirety, declare the Constitutional Court Decree Number 17 of 2023, dated November 9, 2023, regarding the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 Term of Office," reads the contents of the main lawsuit in the Anwar Usman case.

In the Constitutional Court's decision which was sued by Anwar, there was the Constitutional Court's decision Number 2/MKMK/L/2023 which imposed sanctions for Anwar's dismissal from the position of Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court.