Towards

Modern&Trustworthy
Justice
Important Moment of 2006
FEBRUARY

JANUARY
T he Decision of the Constitutional Court declared the
petition from the pair of candidates for the Mayor/
T he execution of Memorandum of Understanding be
tween the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indone-
sia and Bank Indonesia. One of the cooperation forms regard-
Deputy Mayor of Depok, Badrul Kamal and Syihabuddin is
ing the centrality of bank in Indonesian constitutional system.
unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard).

JULY AUGUST
I n the decision of Dispute over the Authority of State In
stitution between the Regent and the Deputy Regent of Bekasi
Regency and the President of the Republic of Indonesia, the
Minister of Home Affairs, and the Regional House of People’s
Representatives of Bekasi Regency, the Constitutional Court
declared that the petition of the Petitioner is unacceptable.
T he Constitutional Court celebrated its third year anniver
sary on August 13, 2006, which was celebrated by among oth-
ers exhibition and book discussion, launching of on line registra-
The Decision of the Constitutional Court declared that the broad- tion of cases for material review and organizing Quiz Contest re-
ening of the element of “against the law” is materially not con- garding Understanding of the 1945 Constitution for Studenst with
cordance with the protection and assurance of legal certainty Seeing Disabilities throughout the Special Region of the Capital
according to the 1945 Constitution. City of DKI Jakarta, Banten, and West Java.

SEPTEMBER DECEMBER

T he taking of oath of Prof. H. M.

Laica Marzuki, SH as the Deputy
T he Constitutional
Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court
of the Republic of Indonesia for the pe-
Court launched the
1945 Constitution in T he Decision of the Constitutional Court de
clared that Truth and Reconciliation Commis-
sion Law is contradictory to the 1945 and does not
riod of 2006-2009 on Thursday, Septem- Sundanese Language in
Bandung. have binding legal force.
ber 7, 2006.

8 Annual Report 2006

MARCH MAY

T he Decision of the Constitu

tional Court declared that the
government must prioritize the allo-
cation for education budget of at least
20% as mandated by the 1945 Consti-
tution.
T he Decision of the Constitutional
Court declared that restriction of educa-
tional level of Junior High School contained T he Constitutional Court
launched the 1945 Constitution
in the Law regarding the Placement and Pro- book in Braille letters in Jakarta.
tection of Indonesian Worker Abroad is con-
tradictory to the 1945 Constitution.

T he Decision of the Constitutional Court

declared that Judicial Commission Law
regarding the supervision over judges is con-
tradictory to the 1945 Constitution and the

P rof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, SH

and Prof. Dr. H. M. Laica
Marzuki, SH, were re-elected as the
Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief
Justice of the Constitutional Court of
the Republic of Indonesia for the pe-
riod of 2006 – 2009.
P rof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, SH took
his oath as the Chief Justice of the
Constitutional Court of the Republic of
Indonesia on August 22, 2006, which was
personally attended by the President and
the Vice President of the Republic of In-
donesia.
constitutional justices are not included as the
object of supervision by the Judicial Commis-
sion. In light of the above, the Constitutional
Court encouraged the revision over the Judi-
cial Commission Law in order that the provi-
sions regarding supervision over judges to be
more detailed and clarified.

O n December 19, 2006, the Constitu

tional Court decided the Case No. 012-
016-019/PUU-IV/2006 regarding Material
Review of the Law regarding the Commis-

T he Decision of the Constitutional sion for the Elimination of Corruption Act

Court declared that articles regarding
insult towards the President and the Vice
President provided for in the Penal Code
are contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.
T he Constitutional Court
launched the 1945 Constitu-
tion in Balinese language in
which declared that dualism of corruption
court is contradictory to the 1945 Constitu-
tion and gave a period of 3 years to make
Denpasar. amendment.

Annual Report 2006 9

 The Constitutional Court
of The Republic of Indonesia

Annual Report
2006

iii
 Vision
To uphold Constitutional in order to
implement the state based on rule of law and
democracy for civilized life of nation state.

Mision
1. To establish the Constitutional Court as a
trustworthy institution to hold judicial
power.
2. To assemble the Indonesian constitu–
tionalism and to enforce the Constitution
as a living constitution.

iv Laporan Tahunan 2006

 The Constitutional Court
the guardian and the interpreter of the constitution

MK has 4 (four) authorities and 1 (one) obligation embodied in Article

24C and Article 7B of UUD 1945, with details are as follow: review Laws
against Contitution, determining dispute over the authorities of state insti-
tutions whose powers are given by Constitution, deciding over the dissolu-
tion of a political party, and deciding over disputes on the results of a gen-
eral election; and also has one obligation, that is to investigate, put on trial
and reach the most just decision on the petition of DPR either that the Presi-
dent and/or Vice President has violated the law through an act of treason,
corruption, bribery, or other serious criminal offences, or through moral
turpitude, and/or that the President and/or Vice President no longer meets
the qualifications to serve as President and/or Vice President.

v
 Towards Modern & Trustworthy Justice
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of The Republic of Indonesia,
Jakarta: Secretary General and Registrar
of The Constitutional Court of The Republic of Indonesia,
First published, January 2007, 104 pages, 21,5 x 28,5 cm

ISBN 978-979-15769-0-1

Graphic Design, Sutopo Toto Hermito

First published,
January 2007

Not For Sale

Publisher
Secretary General and Registrar
The Constitutional Court of The Republic of Indonesia
Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 7 Jakarta Pusat
Telp. (021) 3520-173, 3520-787 Faks. (021) 3520-177
www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id
email: sekretrariat@mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id

vi
 Content
Vision and Mision 4
Content 7
Important Moment of MK 2006 8
Introductory remarks of MK’s Chief Justice 10
Justices’ Profile 14

Chapter One:
Preface 24
Chapter Two:
Accomplishment of Obligation and Authorities 27
Chapter Three:
Justices Activities 53
Chapter Four:
Accomplishment of Justicial Administration 59
Chapter Five:
Budget & Finance 77

Datas & Statistic 83

vii
10 Laporan Tahunan 2006
 Foreword of
The Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court
of The Republic of Indonesia
Year 2006 is the fourth year for the Constitutional
Court which was formed based on the result of the
amendment to the 1945 Constitution. As a new state
high institution, the Constitutional Court has strived
to the extent possible to implement the authorities
and obligation mandated by the 1945 Constitution
and stipulated in the Law Number 24 of the Year
2003 regarding the Constitutional Court. One of the
forms of such effort is by publishing annual report
depicting the implementation of the authorities and
the management of the organization and
administration supporting the existence of the
Constitutional Court as stipulated in Article 13 of
the Constitutional Court Law.
During the year 2006, the Constitutional Court
examined 41 case petitions consisting of 36 cases of
material review against the Constitution and 5 cases
of dispute over the constitutional authority of state
institution. Of the 41 cases, have been decided 32
cases which are set out in 24 decisions and 3
stipulation of revocation. Therefore, the remaining
cases of the year 2006 are 9 cases consisting of 7 cases
of material review against the Constitution and 2
cases of dispute over the constitutional authority of
state institution. Those remaining cases are cases
received in November and December of 2006.
As one of the executors of judiciary authority
holding court proceedings in order to enforce the
Laporan Tahunan 2006
law and justice, the decision of the Constitutional
Court is final and binding in nature. As one of the
new matters, there are several decisions of the
Constitutional Court in the year 2006 which have
given rise to the dynamics in the state constitutional
life. The dynamics is appropriateness in the
democratic life which must constantly be restored
to the corridor of the 1945 Constitution as the
materialization of mutual agreement of all citizens.
As an institution formed and carried out by
human being, indeed, the existence and pace of the
Constitutional Court during the year 2006 was not
free from weaknesses and flaws. Therefore, the
consideration of all parties by giving critics, advice
and input, is always required to improve the quality
for the implementation of task and authorities of the
Constitutional Court in the future, and to materialize
the Constitutional Court as a modern and trusted
judiciary institution.
Jakarta, December 31, 2006
Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H.
11
12 Laporan Tahunan 2006
 Justices Profile

Laporan Tahunan 2006 13

Justices Profile

Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H.

Born in Palembang, on April 17, 1956.
Obtained law degree from Law Faculty of
University of Indonesia (1982) and became a
lecturer in his faculty. Completed his Master
Degree in the Law Faculty of University of
Indonesia(1987). His Doctoral Degree in Law
Science from Post Graduate Faculty of
University of Indonesia, Sandwich Program in
cooperation with Rechtssfaculteit Rijks-
Universiteit and Van Voolenhoven Institute,
Leiden (1990). In the year 2000, he was
appointed as Full Time Professor for
Constitutional Law of Law Faculty of University
of Indonesia. He attended many educations and
trainings, as well as international meetings. He
was elected as constitutional justice upon the
proposal of the House of People’s
Representatives. He was then elected to be the
Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of the
first period (2003-2006) by gaining five votes of
eight members of the constitutional justices
present in the initial meeting of the
Constitutional Court. In the second period
(2006-2009), he was re-elected as the Chief
Justice of the Constitutional Court by gaining
eight votes of nine Constitutional Justices
present at the meeting.

14 Laporan Tahunan 2006

 Prof. Dr. H. Mohamad Laica Marzuki, S.H.
Born in Tekolampe, Sinjai, South
Celebes, on May 5, 1941. Obtained his law
degree from the Law Faculty of Hasanuddin
University (1979) and became a lecturer in
his faculty. Attended Advanced Study in
Leiden (Sandwich Program, 1984-1985)
and Utrecht (1989-1990), the Netherlands.
Obtained his Doctoral Degree from
Padjajaran University, Bandung. He was a
Junior Attorney General of State District
Attorney of Sungguminasa, South Sulawesi
(1961) and has long worked as lawyer.
Before being elected as constitutional
justice upon the proposal of the Supreme
Court, since the year 2000 up to August
2003, he served as a supreme judge in the
Supreme Court. In the initial meeting of the
Constitutional Court which he did not attend
due to being ill, he was elected as the
Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional
Court for the first period (2003-2006). In the
second period (2006-2009), he was re-
elected as the Deputy Chief Justice of the
Constitutional Court.

Laporan Tahunan 2006 15

Justices Profile

Prof. H. Abdul Mukthie Fadjar, S.H., MS.

Born in Yogyakarta, on December

24, 1942. His law degree was obtained
from the Law Faculty of Gadjah Mada
University (1970). Since 1971, he has
become a lecturer in Brawijaya
University, Malang. Completed his
Master Degree in Airlangga University,
Surabaya (1985). In the campus where
he dedicated his knowledge, Prof.
Mukthie was entrusted as the Head of
Constitutional Law Major (1983-1989)
and the Dean of Law Faculty (1988-
1992). Before being elected as
constitutional justice, this Professor of
Law Faculty of Brawijaya University was
the Head of General Election
Commission for East Java Province
(May-August 2003). He was elected to
become constitutional justice of the
Constitutional Court upon the proposal
of the President of the Republic of
Indonesia.

16 Laporan Tahunan 2006

 Prof. H. Ahmad Syarifuddin Natabaya, S.H., LLM.

Born in Cempaka, Ogan Komering Ulu,

Palembang, on March 3, 1942. Completed
his law degree in Law Faculty of Sriwijaya
University, Palembang (1967). Since 1964,
he has taught in his faculty. Obtained his
LLM title from Indiana University School
of Law, Blumington, the United States of
America (1980). This former Dean of Law
Faculty of Sriwijaya University was once
the Head of the Agency for National Legal
Development (1996-2000). Since 2002-
2003, he served as Special Staff of the
Minister of Justice and Human Rights of
the Republic of Indonesia. His name was
nominated to be constitutional justice by
the President of the Republic of Indonesia.

Laporan Tahunan 2006 17

Justices Profile

Lieutenant General of Indonesian National Army

(Retired) H. Achmad Roestandi, S.H.

Born in Banjar, West Java, on March

1, 1941. Completed law degree in Law
Faculty of Padjajaran University,
Bandung, in 1964. He then continued his
career in military and retired with the final
rank as Lieutenant General. His top
position in the People’s Consultative
Assembly was as the Head of Faction of
the Indonesian National Army/Police
Department of the Republic of Indonesia
in the People’s Consultative Assembly. He
was elected as constitutional justice upon
the proposal of the House of People’s
Representatives.

18 Laporan Tahunan 2006

 Dr. Harjono, S.H., MCL.

Born in Nganjuk, East Java, on

March 31, 1948. Obtained his law degree
from the Law Faculty of Airlangga
University (1977). Obtained his Master of
Comparative Law (MCL) title from
Southern Methodist University, Dallas,
the United States of America (1981).
Obtained his Doctoral degree in Law
Science from Airlangga University,
Surabaya. He is teaching in several
universities in Indonesia. He once served
as the Dean of Law Faculty of Bangkalan
University, Madura. His latest position
was the member of the People’s
Consultative Assembly of the Republic of
Indonesia as the Delegate from East
Java Region, before being elected as
constitutional justice through the
proposal from the President of the
Republic of Indonesia.

Laporan Tahunan 2006 19

Justices Profile

Soedarsono, S.H.

Born in Surabaya, on June 5, 1941.

Completed his law degree in the Law
Faculty of Tujuh Belas Agustus University
(1967). He has served as career judge for
35 years since 1968 with various positions.
He has attended education in Institut
International d’Administration Publique,
Paris (1989) and Judicial Training Australia
(Federal Court of Australia). He has also
become a lecturer in several universities
in Surabaya. His latest position was as the
Head of State Administrative High Court
of Surabaya (2002-2003), before being
elected as constitutional justice through the
proposal from the Supreme Court.

20 Laporan Tahunan 2006

 Maruarar Siahaan, S.H.
Born in Tanah Jawa, North Sumatra,
on December 16, 1942. Obtained his law
degree from the Law Faculty of University
of Indonesia(1967). Attended international
law and law comparative study in
International Comparative Law Center
South Western Legal Foundation,
University of Texas, Dallas (1976), up
grading for state judges of the United
States of America in National College for
State Judiciary, University of Nevada,
Reno (1976), Visiting Scholar, School of
Law, University of California, Berkeley
(1990-1991), and Judicial Orientation,
New Santh Wiles, Judicial Commission,
Wollonggong, Australia (1997). He Had a
career as judge in district court. His latest
position before being elected as
constitutional justice through the proposal
of the Supreme Court was the Head of
High Court of Bengkulu.

Laporan Tahunan 2006 21

Justices Profile

I Dewa Gede Palguna, S.H., M.H.

Born in Bangli, Bali, on December 24,
1961. Obtained his law degree from the
Law Faculty of Udayana University, Bali
(1987). Since 1988 has become a
lecturer in his faculty. Completed his
Master degree majoring International
Law in Padjajaran University, Bandung
(1994). His latest position before being
elected as constitutional justice through
the proposal from the House of People’s
Representatives of the Republic of
Indonesia was a Member of the People’s
Consultative Assembly of the Republic of
Indonesia as the Delegate of Bali
Province (for the period of 1999-2004).

22 Laporan Tahunan 2006

 Preface

Laporan Tahunan 2006 23

 The Constitutional Court
Preface of The Republic of Indonesia
T he state ideal adhered to by the 1945 Constitution is a demo
cratic rule of law state. The ideal of rule of law and demo-
cratic state is contained in paragraph 4 of the 1945 Constitution “…then
the Independence of Indonesian Nation is composed in a Constitution of
the Indonesian State, which is formed in a composition of the State of
the Republic of Indonesia with people sovereignty...”. The same is also
affirmed in Article 1 of the 1945 Constitution which states that sover-
eignty is in the hand of the people in the form of republic state and it is
affirmed that Indonesian State is a rule of law state.
As a rule of law state, any action of the state organizer and the
Foto: Gani
citizen must be in accordance with the prevailing legal rule. Legal in this
case is the hierarchy of norm pinnacled by the constitution which is the
1945 Constitution. Therefore, the implementation of democracy must also
be based on the legal rule pinnacled by the 1945 Constitution. This is
also the consequence of the provision of Article 1 paragraph (2) of the
1945 Constitution which states that the sovereignty lies in the hand of
the people and implemented according to the provisions of the Constitu-
tion.
On the contrary, the applied and enforced law must reflect the will
of the people, therefore, it must be ensured that there is people’s par-
ticipation in the state decision making process. Law is not made to en-
sure the interest of several ruling individuals; instead, it is made to en-
24
sure the interest of all citizens. The will of all citizens is reflected in the
1945 Constitution which is a form of general agreement of all citizens.
Therefore, the 1945 Constitution is the highest law. Any lower legal norm
and all practices of state and nation life must be in accordance with the
provisions of the 1945 Constitution.
To safeguard the supremacy of the 1945 Constitution, the Consti-
tutional Court is formed as one of the executors of judiciary authority
organizing court proceedings in order to enforce the law and justice.
The 1945 Constitution grants four authorities to the Constitutional Court
which are reviewing the law against the Constitution, deciding dispute
over the authority of state institutions, deciding the dissolution of politi-
cal party, and deciding dispute regarding the result of general election.
In addition, the 1945 Constitution has also mandated one obligation which
is giving decision over the opinion of the House of People’s Representa-
tives in relation to the dismissal process of the President and the Vice
President during their term of office.
Besides ensuring the supremacy of the 1945 Constitution, the au-
thorities of the Constitutional Court are also a form of implementation of
co-supervising and co-balancing principles amongst the branches of
government. The authority of lawmaker through democratic institution is
balanced by the authority of material review of law against the Constitu-
tion as the highest form of agreement of all citizens. Dispute over the
Annual Report 2006
authority of state institutions must be settled through legal procedure
based on the 1945 Constitution. in the same also applies to the case of
dissolution of political party, dispute over the result of general election,
and the dismissal process of the President and the Vice President dur-
ing their term of office.
In order to implement the authorities and obligation mandated by
the 1945 Constitution, one of the missions of the Constitutional Court is
to become modern and trustworthy judiciary. Modern judiciary is judici-
ary who can provide uncomplicated and responsive service to all
stakeholders. Trustworthy judiciary is judiciary which is truly impartial,

Foto: Mardian W.

transparent, and has integrity; therefore, all of its decisions are trusted
by all parties as the effort to enforce the law and justice.
This 2006 annual report is one of the forms of accountability of the
Constitutional Court as one of the state high institutions executing the
sovereignty based on the 1945 Constitution to all Indonesian people as
the holder of sovereignty. Besides containing information regarding the
implementation of authorities in the form of cases being examined and
decided by the Constitutional Court, this report also serves as informa-
tion regarding the activities of constitutional justices and the activities of
the Secretariat General and the Registry throughout the year 2006.

Annual Report 2006 25

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

The Implementation of the Authorities

of The Constitutional Court

Annual Report 2006 27

The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court is a state high institution whose exist- 03/PMK/2003 regarding the Procedure for the Court Session in the Con-
ence and authority are mandated by the 1945 Constitution which is fur- stitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia; Regulation of the Consti-
ther stipulated in Law Number 24 of the Year 2003 regarding the Consti- tutional Court Number 04/PMK/2004 regarding the Guidelines for the
tutional Court. The Constitutional Court has four authorities and one Court Session in the Dispute over the Result of General Election; Regu-
obligation in accordance with those mandated by Article 24C paragraphs lation of the Constitutional Court Number 05/PMK/2004 regarding the
(1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Four authorities of the Constitu- Procedure for the Submission of Objection over the Stipulation of the
tional Court are examining at the first and final level whose decision is Result of General Election for the President and the Vice President for
final to materially review the law against the Constitution, decide dis- the Year 2004; Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number 06/PMK/
pute over the authority of state institution whose authority is granted by 2005 regarding the Procedure for the Court Session in the Material Re-
the Constitution, decide the dissolution of political party, and decide dis- view Cases; and Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number 08/PMK/
pute over the result of general election. Whereas the obligation of the 2006 regarding the Guidelines for the Court Session in the Dispute over
Constitutional Court is providing decision over the opinion of the House the Constitutional Authority of State Institutions.
of People’s Representative regarding the assumption of violation by the
President and/or the Vice President according to the Constitution.
Based on the authorities being possessed, the Constitutional Court
is the guardian of the constitution in relation to the four authorities and
one obligation which it owns. It also brings a consequence to the Con-
stitutional Court to function as the sole interpreter of the constitution.
Constitution as the highest law stipulates the state governing based on
the principle of democracy and one of the functions of the constitution is
to protect human rights which are ensured in the constitution, therefore,
human rights become the constitutional right of the citizen. Consequently,
the Constitutional Court also functions as the guardian of the democ-
racy, the protector of the citizen’s constitutional rights and the protector
of the human rights.
For the efficient implementation of the tasks and authorities of the

Constitutional Court, have been formulated several Regulations of the
Constitutional Court have been formulated according to the provisions
of Article 86 of the Constitutional Court Law. The Regulations of the
Constitutional Court cover Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number
01/PMK/2003 regarding the Procedure for the Election of the Chief Jus-
tice and the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court; Regulation
of the Constitutional Court Number 02/PMK/2003 regarding the Code of
Ethic and Guidelines for the Code of Conduct of Constitutional Justices
which afterward was revoked and substituted by Regulation of the Con-
stitutional Court Number 07/PMK/2005 regarding the Effective Applica-
tion of the Declaration on the Code of Ethic and Code of Conduct of the
Constitutional Justices; Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number
Photo: Gani
Constitutional Court Building
Of those four authorities and one obligation owned by the Consti-
tutional Court, the majority of cases received are material review of law
against the Constitution. This is due to the fact that every citizen, legal
entity, and state institution may act as the petitioner if its constitutional
rights and authorities are impaired by the provisions of a law. Whereas
in other cases, only certain parties who can act as the petitioners, for
example, for cases regarding dispute over the constitutional authority of
state institution, dissolution of political party, and dispute over the result

28 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Remaining PUU
SKLN 2006 of 2005
Revoked; 3
Granted; 7

Remaining SKLN
of 2005
…………….

Unacceptable;
10
Overruled; 6
PUU 2006

Remaining PUU of 2005 Remaining SKLN of 2005 PUU 2006 SKLN 2006 Granted Overruled Unacceptable Revoked

of general election. In addition, there is also authority related only to a and related parties which must be heard in the court session.
certain momentum which is the dispute over the result of general elec- Those decided 32 cases are consisting of 29 PUU cases and 3
tion, and the dismissal of the President and or the Vice President during SKLN cases. The 29 PUU cases which have been decided are consist-
their term of office. ing of 2 stipulations for the revocation and 23 decisions, due to the uni-
9
fication of several cases. If observed from the injunction of the deci-
sions, of the 23 PUU decisions in the year 2006, there are 7 granting
decisions, 6 overruling decisions, and 10 decisions declaring that the
3 petitions are unacceptable.

29 1

Decided Revoked Remaining

Throughout 2006, the Constitutional Court received 31 petitions 2

consisting of 27 cases of material review (PUU) and 4 cases of dispute

over the authority of state institution (SKLN). In addition, there are the
Unacceptable Revoked
remaining 9 PUU cases and 1 SKLN case from the year 2005. There-
fore, the total cases examined in the year 2006 are 41 cases with total Whereas for SKLN cases, 2 cases are decided of being unaccept-
PUU cases of 36 cases and total SKLN cases of 5 cases. able and 1 case is revoked.
Of those 41 cases, have been decided 32 cases consisting of 29
PUU cases and 3 SKLN cases. Therefore, there remain 9 cases consist-
ing of 7 PUU cases and 2 SKLN cases. Those unresolved cases are
cases registered in November and December of 2006.
In each month, averagely, the Constitutional Court produced 2.7
Lost one paragraph
decisions. The time required to decide one case is varied, starting from
(check out dummy!)
less than one month up to 8.4 months. Cases requiring the longest time
was material review over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law
since there were a lot of information from the petitioner, witness, expert,

Annual Report 2006 29

The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court
A. Material Review Decisions Declaring
that the Petitions are Granted
Decision No. 026/PUU-III/2005 regarding material re-
view over 2006 State Revenue and Expenditure Budget
Law: Educational Budget of 9,1% is Contrary to the
1945 Constitution
Former Minister of Education and Culture takes a part, together with teacher, in a demonstration to demand an
increase in education budget.
Case Decision No. 026/PUU-III/2005 was recited in a Plenary Court
Session on March 22, 2006, and has been published in the State Report
of the Republic of Indonesia Number 25 of the Year 2006. The Constitu-
tional Court declared that Law No. 13 of the Year 2005 regarding State
Revenue and Expenditure Budget for the Budget Year of 2006 (2006
State Revenue and Expenditure Budget Law) to the extent concerning
education budget amounting to 9.1% as the highest limit, is contradic-
tory to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force.
This Decision declared that the provisions of law is identified as
“contradictory to the 1945 Constitution”, does not always have to con-
tradict or conflict in diametric position against the Constitution, instead,
30
it can also take place due to the provision is being inconsistent or non-
conforming (unvereinbar) to the Constitution as the highest law. The
total concrete percentage of educational budget referred in Article 31
paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the allocation of edu-
cation budget amounting to 9.1% in the 2006 State Revenue and Ex-
penditure Budget Law is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.
In this decision is also discussed its relation to the decision of the
Constitutional Court case No. 012/PUU-III/2005 regarding material re-
view of the 2005 State Revenue and Expenditure
Budget. It is explained that the decision existed in
different period of time from the material review of
this 2006 State Revenue and Expenditure Budget.
At that time, the petition was submitted and exam-
ined at the end of the budget year, whereas in this
case, the petition was submitted and examined at
the beginning of the budget year, therefore, differ-
ent from the previous case, there is a huge possi-
bility for the Government and the House of Peo-
ple’s Representative to increase the education
budget in a more significant manner by means of
re-allocating the budget through the Amendment to
the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget (APBN-
P/APBN Perubahan) which will further reflect the
seriousness of the Government and the House of
Photo: Denny
People’s Representatives to comply with the provi-
sions of Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Con-
stitution which is firmly instructed to be prioritized.
With the presence of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 012/PUU-
III/2005, the Government and the House of People’s Representatives
should already precisely know that educational budget of less than 20%
is contradictory to Article 31 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.
In order to avoid the stagnation and disorder in the government
organizing, the decision of the Constitutional Court only gives rise to
legal consequence towards the unconstitutionality of the educational
budget in a limited manner, which is regarding the highest limit, and not
towards the entire 2006 State Revenue and Expenditure Budget Law.
This means that the 2006 State Revenue and Expenditure Budget re-
mains legally binding and can be implemented as the legal basis for the
Annual Report 2006

implementation of the State Revenue and Expenditure Budget with an
obligation from the side of the Government and the House of People’s
Representatives to allocate the surplus fund obtained from the result of
economizing of state expenditure and/or the proceeds of revenue in-
crease to the educational budget in the 2006 Amendment to the State
Revenue and Expenditure Budget.
Decision Number 019-020/PUU-III/2005 regarding Ma-
terial Review of the Law regarding the Placement and
Protection of Indonesian Worker Abroad (UU PPTKI):
Limitation of Education Level for Indonesian Worker
is Contrary to the 1945 Constitution
The Constitutional Court declared Article 35 letter d of Law Number
39 of the Year 2004 regarding the Placement and Protection of Indone-
sian Worker Abroad (UU PPTKI) is contradictory to the 1945 Constitu-
tion and does not have binding legal force. This is set out in the Deci-
sion of the Constitutional Court Number 019-020/PUU-III/2005 dated
March 28, 2006, which has been published in the State Report of the
Minister of Justice and Human Rights Hamid Awaluddin and Minister of Manpower Erman Suparno as the representatives of the government in Constitutional Court session for the
review of law on Placement and Protection of Indonesian Workers Abroad.
Republic of Indonesia Number 28 of the Year 2006 dated April 7, 2006.
This decision is decision over the unification of Case Number 019/PUU-
III/2005 and Case Number 020/PUU-III/2005.
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
Article 35 letter d of the Law regarding Placement and Protection
of Indonesian Worker Abroad (UU PPTKI) read as follows, “Recruitment
of candidates Indonesian Worker by the private organizer for the place-
ment of Indonesian Worker must be conducted towards candidates of
Indonesian Worker having complied with the requirements ... d) having
the education of at least having been graduated from Junior High School
(Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama/SLTP) or the equivalent.”
In this Decision, it is declared that an adult requires a job to be
able to fulfill the life necessity both for himself and his family without
discriminating whether that person is a graduate of Junior High School
(SLTP) or not. If he cannot get a job, it can be assured that such person
will not be able to perfectly fulfill his life necessity and therefore his right
to survival and continued existence will be interrupted, moreover his
right to prosperous life.
Limitation of educational level (Junior High School/SLTP) may only
be justified if the job requirement indeed requires such limitation. Limi-
tation of educational level beyond the requirement stipulated by the work
as contained in Article 35 letter d of the Law regarding Placement and
Photo: Denny
Protection of Indonesian Worker Abroad (UU PPTKI) on the other hand
does not have justifying basis (rechtsvaardigingsgrond) according to
Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
31
The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court

Therefore, limitation of education level of Junior High School (SLTP)

contained in the article of the Law regarding Placement and Protection
of Indonesian Worker Abroad (UU PPTKI) is contradictory to the right of
occupation assured by Article 27 paragraph (2), right to survival and
continued existence based on Article 28A, and the right to prosperous
life based on Article 28H paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Moreo-
ver, educational requirement in Article 35 letter d of the Law regarding
the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Worker Abroad (UU PPTKI)
becomes irrelevant if related to the constitutional obligation of the Gov-
ernment to financially sponsor elementary education according to Arti-
cle 31 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which if being complied
with by the Government, will automatically resulted in the Indonesian
work force to have reached the minimum educational level of Junior High
School (Sekolah Lanjutan Tingkat Pertama/SLTP).

Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material

review of the Law regarding the Elimination of Cor-
ruption Act (UU PTPK): Broadening of the element of
“Against the Law” is Contradictory to the 1945 Con-
stitution
Decision Number 003/PUU-IV/2006 is a decision regarding Mate-

rial Review over the Provisions of Law Number 31 of the Year 1999
regarding the Elimination of Corruption Act as amended by Law Number
20 of the Year 2001 (UU PTPK) as recited in the publicly open court
session of the Constitutional Court on July 25, 2006. The injunction of
the decision is granting the petition of the petitioner partially.
This case is submitted by the Petitioner Ir. Dawud Djatmiko who
has gone through court proceeding process as the defendant in the case
of allegation of corruption act which was alleged to violate Article 2 para-
graph (1), and/or Article 3 of the Law regarding the Elimination of Cor-
ruption Act (UU PTPK). The Petitioner submitted material review over
Article 2 paragraph (1), Elucidation of Article 2 paragraph (1), Article 3,
Elucidation of Article 3, and Article 15 (to the extent concerning the word
“attempt”) of Law Number 31 of the Year 1999 regarding the Elimination
of Corruption Act as amended by Law Number 20 of the Year 2001.
In this decision, declared of being contradictory to the 1945 Con-
stitution and does not have binding legal force is the Elucidation of Arti-
cle 2 paragraph (1) of the Law regarding the Elimination of Corruption
Photo: Gani
Deputy Chairman of Corruption Eradication Commission Tumpak H. Panggabean after
the reading of decision on Corruption Tribunal.
Act (UU PTPK) to the extent concerning the phrase “Meant by “in a man-
ner which is against the law’ in this article covers lawful misconduct in
the formal meaning and in the material meaning, which is even though
the action is not stipulated in the statutory regulations, however, if the
action is considered as disgraceful deed due to being contrary to the
sense of justice or the norms of social life in the community, then, such
action is punishable”.
Elucidation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Law regarding the Elimi-
nation of Corruption Act (UU PTPK) is considered by the Constitutional
Court of having broadened the category of the element of “against the
law” in the criminal law which is no longer as formele wederrechtelijkheid
but also in the meaning of materiele wederrechtelijkheid. Elucidation

32 Annual Report 2006


from the lawmaker is essentially not only elucidating Article 2 paragraph
(1) regarding the element of against the law, instead it has given rise to
a new norm, containing the utilization of unwritten measures in a law, in
a formal manner, to determine punishable deed.
Such Elucidation has caused the criteria of lawful misconduct rec-
ognized in the civil law as if has already been accepted as a measure of
against the law in the criminal law (wederrechtelijkheid). Matters which
are appropriate and complying with the sense of morality and the sense
of justice in the community, which differ from one region to another, will
cause legal uncertainty. Therefore, the first sentence of the Elucidation
of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Law regarding the Elimination of Cor-
ruption Act (UU PTPK) is not in conformity with the protection and as-
surance of fair legal certainty in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945
Constitution.
Decision No. 005/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material re-
view of Judicial Commission Law (UU KY) and Judici-
ary Authority Law (UU KK): Ambiguity of Mechanism
for the Supervision over the Judges is Contradictory
to the 1945 Constitution
Photo: Denny
Bambang Widjayanto (Attorney of JC) and Soekotjo Soeprapto (Member of JC)
in Constitutional Court Decision Session.
Decision Number 005/PUU-IV/2006 is decision on the material re-
view of Law Number 22 of the Year 2004 regarding Judicial Commission
(UUKY) and Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4 of the Year
2004 regarding Judiciary Authority (UUKK) against the 1945 Constitu-
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
tion. The provisions being petitioned to be materially reviewed are Arti-
cle 34 paragraph (3) of Judiciary Authority Law (UUKK) which are Arti-
cle 1 point 5, Article 20, Article 21, Article 22 paragraphs (1) and (5),
Article 23 paragraphs (2), (3), and (5), Article 24 paragraph (1), Article
25 paragraphs (3) and (4) of Judicial Commission Law (UUKY), and Ar-
ticle 34 paragraph (3) of Judiciary Authority Law (UUKK).
The injunction of this decision declared of granting parts of the
petition which are Article 1 point 5 to the extent concerning the words
“the constitutional justices of the Constitutional Court”, Article 20, Arti-
cle 21, Article 22 paragraph (1) letter e, Article 22 paragraph (5), Article
23 paragraphs (2), (3), and (5), Article 24 paragraph (1), Article 25 para-
graphs (3) and (4) of Judicial Commission Law (UUKY), and Article 34
paragraph (3) of Judiciary Authority Law (UUKK) are contradictory to
the 1945 Constitution and do not have binding legal force. This decision
was recited in the Plenary Court Session of the Constitutional Court on
Wednesday, August 23, 2006.
There are two important issues in this decision, which are issue
regarding the supervision over the constitutional justices and ambiguity
of object and mechanism for the supervision of judges stipulated in Ju-
dicial Commission Law (UUKY). The Constitutional Court declared that
to the extent concerning the broadening of definition of judges accord-
ing to Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which covers
the constitutional justices, it is proven of being contradictory to the 1945
constitution. This Decision is based on the systematic understanding
and definition based on the “original intent” for the formulation of the
provisions regarding the Judicial Commission in Article 24B of the 1945
Constitution, it indeed does not relate to the provisions regarding the
Constitutional Court stipulated in Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution.
The non coverage of definition regarding the rule of conduct of
constitutional justices in the supervisory authority of the Judicial Com-
mission as stipulated in Article 24B of the 1945 Constitution can also be
observed from the provisions of the Constitutional Court Law and Judi-
ciary Authority Law which was formulated prior to the formulation of the
Judicial Commission Law. In addition, the constitutional justices are
basically not judges in the permanent profession; instead, they are judges
due to their positions. The Constitutional Court also considered the sub-
stantive reason related to the authority to decide dispute over constitu-
tional authority of state institution. If the supervision of the Judicial Com-
33
The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court

mission also covers the constitutional justices, then, the Judicial Com- Decision Number 013-022/PUU-IV/20006 regarding the
Material Review of Articles 134, 136bis, and 137 of the
mission cannot act as a party in the case regarding dispute over the
Penal Code: Articles regarding Insult toward the Presi-
authority of state institution which becomes the authority of the Constitu- dent is Contradictory to the 1945 Constitution
tional Court to trial.
Towards the petition of the Petitioners, to the extent concerning

Photo: Denny
the definition of judges according to Article 24B paragraph (1) of the
1945 Constitution which covers the supreme judge, is proven of being
unfounded. This Decision declared that issues relating to the question
whether judges according to Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Con-
stitution cover the definition of supreme judge or not, cannot be discov-
ered convincing constitutional basis. The lawmaker may determine
whether the supreme judge is included in the supervision territory of the
Judicial Commission or not. Therefore, the Judicial Commission remains
possessing the supervision authority as granted by the 1945 Constitu-
tion.
However, related to the formulation of supervision in the law, the
Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the formulation of Article 13
letter b in conjunction with Article 20 of Judicial Commission Law (UUKY)
as the explication of Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution
uses different formulation of sentences, therefore, it causes problem in Communication expert Effendy Ghazali is interviewed after attending Constitutional Court
session.
the norm establishment which results in legal uncertainty
(rechtsonzekerheid). Judicial Commission Law (UUKY) is proven of be-
ing unspecific in stipulating the supervisory procedure, unclear and ir- This Decision is a decision for case Number 013/PUU-IV/2006 and
resolute in determining who is the supervising subject; who is the super- Case Number 022/PUU-IV/2006. The Petitioners argue that Article 134,
vised object; what are the utilized instruments; and how is the supervi- Article 136 bis, and Article 137 of the Penal Code stipulating the offence

sory process being implemented. Those issues make all provisions of of insult towards the President and the Vice President are contradictory
the Judicial Commission Law (UUKY) regarding supervision become to the principle of equality before the law (Article 27 paragraph (1) of the
obscure (obscuur) and cause legal uncertainty (rechtsonzekerheid) in 1945 Constitution), the principle of freedom to express your opinion orally

their implementation. Therefore, all provisions of Judicial Commission and in writing (Article 28 in conjunction with Article 28E Paragraph (2)
Law (UUKY) concerning supervision are declared of being contradictory an Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution), and the principle that any
to the 1945 Constitution and do not have binding legal force. The House person must respect the human rights of other person (Article 28J of the

of People’s Representatives and the President are also suggested to 1945 Constitution).
make integral reformations by also making amendment in the framework The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that Article 134, Article
of harmonization and synchronization over the Judiciary Authority Law, 136 bis, and Article 137 of the Penal Code could give rise to legal uncer-

the Supreme Court Law, the Constitutional Court Law, and other laws tainty (rechtsonzekerheid) since they are very susceptible to an inter-
related to the integrated judiciary system. pretation whether a protest, statement of opinion or thought are critics
or insults towards the President and/or the Vice President. This is con-
tradictory to Article 28D Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and in a

34 Annual Report 2006


certain point will hamper the communication effort and obtainment of
information, which are assured by Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution.
Those articles of the Penal Code could also hamper the right of freedom
to express opinion orally, in writing and the expression of perspective
since it can always be used by the legal apparatus towards demonstra-
tion act. It is also contradictory to Article 28, Article 28E Paragraph (2),
and Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution;
For insult towards the President and/or the Vice President, accord-
ing to the law, should be applied Article 310-Article 321 of the Penal
Code, if the insult (beleediging) is addressed to their personal quality,
and Article 207 of the Penal Code in the case that the insult is addressed
to the President and/or the Vice President as officials (als ambtsdrager).
Prosecution over such offence should be conducted based on indict-
ment (bij klacht). The existence of Article 134, Article 136 bis, and Arti-
cle 137 of the Penal Code could also become an impediment and/or
obstruction for the possibility to clarify whether the President and/or the
Vice President have conducted violation as meant in Article 7A of the
1945 Constitution.
The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that as a democratic le-
gal state, it is no longer relevant if its Penal Code remains containing
articles, such as, Article 134, Article 136 bis, and Article 137 which ne-
gate the principle of equality before the law, diminish the freedom for
expressing thought and opinion, freedom of information, and the princi-
ple of legal certainty. Therefore, this decision declared that the petition
of the Petitioner is granted for its entirety, declared that Article 134, Ar-
ticle 136 bis, and Article 137 of the Penal Code are contradictory to the
1945 Constitution and do not have binding legal force.
Decision Number 006/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
review over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Law (UU KKR): Compensation and Restitution Cannot
be Relied on the Granting of Amnesty
Petitioners in this case submitted petition for material review over
Article 27, Article 1 point 9, and Article 44 of Law No. 27 of the Year
2004 regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) which
are considered contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, especially Article
28D Paragraph (1) and Article 28I Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitu-
tion. The injunction of this decision declared of granting the petition of
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
Photo: Denny
Taufik Ismail (as a witness) and some of the petitioners deliver a thankful bow after the
reading of decision of law on Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
the Petitioners, declaring that Law No. 27 of the Year 2004 regarding
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) is contradictory to the
1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force. This decision
was recited in a publicly open Plenary Court Session of the Constitu-
tional Court on Thursday, December 7, 2006.
Actually, in this decision, the provision declared of being contra-
dictory to the 1945 Constitution is Article 27 of the Truth and Reconcili-
ation Commission Law (UU KKR). However, since such provision deter-
mines the operation of the entire Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Law (UU KKR), then the entire Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Law (UU KKR) is declared of not having binding legal force. Article 27 of
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law states “Compensation and
rehabilitation as meant in Article 19 may be given if the petition for am-
nesty is granted.”
This arrangement contains contradiction between one part with the
other. The confusion and contradiction contained in Article 27 of the
Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law is concerning the pressure
which perceive the perpetrator is individually in individual criminal re-
sponsibility, whereas, incident of human rights violation prior to the ef-
fective application of the Law regarding Human Rights Court, both the
perpetrator and the victims, and the other witnesses cannot be easily
found anymore. Reconciliation between the perpetrator and the victims
become impossible to be materialized if it is conducted by means of
35
The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court

individual criminal responsibility approach. Decision Number 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006 regarding

material review of Corruption Elimination Commission
On the other hand, if the aim is to reconcile by means of non indi-
Law (UU KPK): Dualism of Courts Trialing Corruption
vidual approach, then, the starting point is the presence of severe Hu- Act is Contradictory to the 1945 Constitution
man Rights violation and the presence of victims which become the
measure for reconciliation by giving compensation and rehabilitation.
The fact that there has been severe Human Rights violation and the
victims whose Human Rights should be protected by the state, will be
sufficient to give rise to legal obligation both to the state and the identi-
fied individual perpetrator to give restitution, compensation, and reha-
bilitation to the victims, without any other requirements. The determina-
tion regarding the presence of amnesty as a requirement is an issue
which disregards legal protection and justice assured by the 1945 Con-
stitution.
Even though the issue being granted from the petition is only Arti-
cle 27 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law (UU KKR), how-
ever, since all operation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Photo: Agus Monica

Law (UU KKR) relies upon and depends on the granted article, then by
the declaration that Article 27 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commis-
sion Law is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and does not have
binding legal force, the entire provision in the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission Law becomes impossible to be implemented. This is due to
the existence of Article 27 is closely related to Article 1 Point 9, Article 6
letter c, Article 7 Paragraph (1) letter g, Article 25 Paragraph (1) letter b,
Article 25 Paragraph (4), Paragraph (5), Paragraph (6), Article 26, Arti-
cle 28 Paragraph (1), and Article 29 of the Truth and Reconciliation Com-
mission Law. The presence of Article 27 and the articles related to Arti-
cle 27 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law are the articles
which enormously determine the applicability or non applicability of all
provisions in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law (UU KKR),
therefore by declaring that Article 27 of the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission Law is not legally binding, the legal implication will cause
all articles related to the amnesty do not have binding legal force. Since
basically the procedural law relating to the material review of law against
the 1945 Constitution is concerning public interest whose legal conse-
quence is erga omnes in nature, therefore, it is inappropriate to per-
ceive it as an issue having the nature of ultra petita which is recognized
in the concept of civil law.
Akil Mochtar, member of the House of Representatives, is giving testimony
in a Constitutional Court session
Provisions which are petitioned by the Petitioners in this petition
are Article 1 Point 3, Article 2, Article 3, Article 6 letter c, Article 11
letter b, Article 12 Paragraph (1) letter a, Article 20, Article 40, Article
53, and Article 72 of Law Number 30 of the Year 2002 regarding the
Corruption Elimination Commission Law (UU KPK).
The Constitutional Court, in this decision, partially granted the
petition of the petitioner, which declared that Article 53 of the Corrup-
tion Elimination Commission Law (UU KPK) is contradictory to the 1945
Constitution. Article 53 of the Corruption Elimination Commission Law
(UU KPK) reads as follows, “Based on this Law, will be formed the Court
for Corruption Act having the task and authority to examine and decide
corruption act which prosecution will be submitted by the Corruption
Elimination Commission.” However, Article 53 of the Corruption Elimi-
nation Commission Law (UU KPK) is declared of continue having bind-
ing legal force until there is amendment which must be made at the
latest 3 (three) years as of this decision is recited. This decision is re-
cited in a publicly open Plenary Court Session on Tuesday, December
19, 2006.

36 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Such decision is based on the legal consideration that, the law-
maker intended the Court for Corruption Act to be a special court, even
though it is not explicitly stated in the Corruption Elimination Commis-
sion Law (UU KPK). However, since the classification of the Court for
Corruption Act as a special court is merely based on the criteria that the
Court for Corruption Act is specifically handling corruption cases which
prosecution are conducted by the Corruption Elimination Commission
(KPK), added by several other characteristics, which are, the composi-
tion of the panel of judges consisting of two public judiciary judges and
three ad hoc judges, who must settle the corruption case within 90 (ninety)
working days as of the case being delegated (Article 58 Paragraph (1)
of the Corruption Elimination Commission Law [UU KPK]), then there
are two different courts in the same judiciary environs, with different
procedural law and with different the composition of the panel of judges
and different obligation to decide the case within certain period in the
same judiciary environs, whereas concerning the deed of a person who
is accused of committing corruption act, threatened by criminal sanction
based on the same law, which can result in different final decision.
The occurring reality in the practice of pubic court and the Court
for Corruption Act so far, demonstrate the evidence that there is a dou-
ble standard in the effort for the elimi-
nation of corruption through two differ-
ent judiciary mechanisms. Observed
from the aspect considered above, Ar-
ticle 53 of the Corruption Elimination
Commission Law (UU KPK) which has
given rise to two institutions is clearly
contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.
Therefore, Article 53 of the Corruption
Elimination Commission Law (UU KPK)
is actually contradictory to Article 24
Paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 24A
Paragraph (5), and Article 28D Para-
graph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
the Corruption Elimination Commission Law (UU KPK) which has been
declared of being contradictory to the 1945 Constitution is at the same
time also being declared of no longer having binding legal force, then
examination of on-going corruption act by the Corruption Elimination
Commission and the Court for Corruption Act will be interrupted or ham-
pered due to losing their legal basis. It can cause the corruption elimina-
tion process to face disorder and cause legal uncertainty which is not
intended by the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Constitutional Court
considers the need to give time for smooth transition for the formulation
of new rules. The Constitutional Court perceives the corruption act which
has impaired the social and economical rights of Indonesian community
is extraordinary crime and common enemy of Indonesian community and
nation in its entirety. Therefore, the purpose of protection of human rights
which is aimed to be achieved through the material review over the pro-
vision of Article 53 before the Constitutional Court is considered of hav-
ing smaller scale compared to the protection of economic and social
rights of the people who are impaired by the corruption act.
To best handle such condition, the judicial wisdom and craftsman-
ship of all parties, especially the judges, is very much required. For such
purpose, the limitation of such legal consequence can be conducted by
Photo: Denny

However, before determining the

legal consequence over the binding le-
gal force of that Article 53, the Consti-
Minister of Forestry, MS Kaban, is giving explanation to the reporters after attending Constitutional Court session.
tutional Court considers if Article 53 of

Annual Report 2006 37

The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court
postponing the non binding force of Article 53 of the Corruption Elimina-
tion Commission Law (UU KPK) which has been declared of being con-
tradictory to the 1945 Constitution in such a manner which will provide
sufficient time for the lawmaker to make improvement in order to con-
form to the 1945 Constitution. It is also intended so that the lawmaker
can completely strengthen the constitutional basis required for the ex-
istence of the Corruption Elimination Commission and the effort for the
elimination of corruption act. The Constitutional Court is of the opinion
that will be required a period of at the most three years. If within three
years, it cannot be fulfilled by the lawmaker, then the provision of Article
53 of the Corruption Elimination Commission Law (UU KPK) will auto-
matically, by law (van rechtswege), no longer has binding legal force.
B. Decisions for Material Review which
Declare the Petitions of being Over-
ruled
Decision Number 021/PUU-III/2005 regarding material
review of Forestry Law: Not Every Expropriation of
Right of Ownership is Contradictory to the 1945 Con-
stitution
The Petitioner is PT Astra Sedaya Finance who submits material
review over Article 78 paragraph (15) of Forestry Law together with its
elucidation of being contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. The Peti-
tioner feels that its constitutional right has been impaired by the effec-
tive application of such article since the trucks of the petitioner used as
the means of transportation for woods obtained illegally (illegal logging)
have been expropriated by the District Attorney General and the High
Attorney General of Jambi, Jambi Province. Although the trucks are the
property of the petitioner which are encumbered with fiduciary security
to the perpetrators of illegal logging.
Towards this issue, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that
right of ownership according to the 1945 Constitution is not an absolute
Human Rights, instead, in its implementation will be obliged to be sub-
jected to the limitation stipulated by law with the purpose of solely for,
among others, interest of public security and public order (Article 28J
paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution). Provisions of Article 78 para-
graph (15) of the Forestry Law is to protect national interest, especially
38
the security of state wealth and environment from illegal logging crime
which for the time being has broken out violently which indirectly disrupt
and even endanger the human rights of other person or the community,
inflict losses to the state, endanger the ecosystem, and the sustainability
of life. Expropriation of goods (trucks) which are the property of the Pe-
titioner is a matter of law implementation as disclosed in the court ses-
sion; therefore, it is not a matter of constitutionality of the norm con-
tained in Article 78 paragraph (15) of the Forestry Law together with its
Elucidation.
The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that not every expropria-
tion of right of ownership will necessarily be contradictory to the 1945
Constitution. Expropriation of right of ownership may be justified to the
extent it is conducted in accordance with the principle of due process of
law, moreover towards the right of ownership arises from legal construc-
tion, such as the right of ownership established from fiduciary security
agreement. However, regardless of the validity of expropriation of right
of ownership to the extent conducted in accordance with the principle of
due process of law mentioned above, right of ownership of third party
having good faith (ter goeder trouw, good faith) must remain be pro-
tected. Therefore, based on the above considerations, the Constitutional
Court is of the opinion that Article 78 paragraph (15) of the Forestry Law
together with its Elucidation is not contradictory to the 1945 Constitu-
tion; consequently the petition of the petitioner is overruled.
Decision Number 024/PUU-III/2005 regarding material
review of Regional Government Law: Suspension of
the Head of Region and the Principle of Presumption
of Innocence
Decision Number 024/PUU-III/2005 is a decision on Material Re-
view of Article 31 paragraph (1) of Law No. 32 of the Year 2004 regard-
ing Regional Government (UU Pemda) together with its Elucidation. The
Petitioner in this decision is Drs. H. Muhammad Madel, M.M., the Re-
gent/Head of Region of Sarolangun Regency, Jambi Province. The Peti-
tioner submits material review over the article which becomes the basis
for his suspension from his position as the Regent of Sarolangun which
is Article 31 paragraph (1) of Law No. 32 of the Year 2004 regarding
Regional Government which content is as follows: “ ... The Head of Re-
gion and/or the Deputy Head of Region can be suspended by the Presi-
Annual Report 2006

Petitioner’s attorney for the review of article 31 paragraph (1) of Law on Local Government.
dent without going through proposal from the Regional House of Peo-
ple’s Representatives for being convicted of committing corruption act,
terrorism act, coup d’état and/or criminal act against the security of the
state ... “.
In this decision, the Constitutional Court affirms that the principle
or code of presumption of innocence is the prevailing principle or code
in the criminal law sector. Meanwhile, according to the Constitutional
Court, formulated by Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Regional Govern-
ment Law and the Elucidation of Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Re-
gional Government Law is the condition depicting the operation of two
processes from two different yet connected law sectors which is state
administrative law process taking the shape of administrative treatment
in the form of suspension towards a state administrative official, and
criminal law process which is the prosecution over that state adminis-
trative official with the conviction of certain criminal act. For the exist-
ence of legal process for administrative treatment in the form of sus-
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
pension, it is required the presence of legal proc-
ess which has been prosecuted against a state ad-
ministrative official with the conviction of having
committed certain criminal act. The principle or code
of presumption of innocent is the condition prec-
edent for the process mentioned subsequently,
which is in the procedural process in order to prove
the criminal act convicted against a state adminis-
trative official.
Suspension towards public official, especially
state administrative official, convicted of committing
criminal act is important to support the operation of
due process of law in order to prevent the relevant
official by means of his position influence the ex-
amination process or legal prosecution convicted to
him. Or in the contrary, to prevent law enforcer to
be influenced by the position of the defendant as
the head of region in a legal culture having the na-
ture of ewuh pakewuh.
Therefore, the suspension conversely realized
the principle of equality or egalitarianism before the
law as meant by Article 27 paragraph (1) and Arti-
cle 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Since, with the suspen-
sion towards a head of region and/or deputy head of region convicted of
committing a crime, as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Re-
gional Government Law, every person can directly see that any one com-
mitting criminal act or crime, then towards him will be applied the same
legal process. The position which is held by a person may not hamper or
impede the criminal accountability process of such person if he is con-
victed of committing a criminal act. In relation to this case, the adminis-
trative treatment in the form of suspension is conversely a legal step to
eliminate obstruction of justice. Therefore, the injunction of this deci-
sion declares the petition of the Petitioner of being overruled. This Deci-
sion is recited in the Plenary Court Session of the Constitutional Court,
on Wednesday, March 29, 2006.
39
The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court
Decision No. 008/PUU-IV/2006 regarding the material
review over the Law on the Composition of Position
of the People’s Consultative Assembly, the House of
People’s Representatives, the Regional Representa-
tives Board, and the Regional House of People’s Rep-
resentatives: The Constitutionality of Recalling the
Members of the House of People’s Representatives.
Djoko Edhi Soetjipto Abdurrahman
in a Constitutional Court session.
Photo: Denny
The provisions of law being examined in this decision are Article
85 paragraph (1) letter C of Law Number 22 of the Year 2003 regarding
the Composition and Position of the People’s Consultative Assembly,
the House of People’s Representatives, the Regional Representative
Board, and the Regional House of People’s Representative, and Article
12 letter b of Law Number 31 of the Year 2002 regarding Political Party.
The Petitioner is Djoko Edhi Soetjipto Abdurahman, former member of
the House of People’s Representatives who is dismissed based on such
provisions. This Decision No. 008/PUU-IV/2006 is recited in a Plenary
Court Session of the Constitutional Court on Thursday, September 28,
40
2006. The injunction of its decision is overruling the petition of the peti-
tioner with four constitutional justices having different opinion.
In the legal consideration, it is stated that since the member of the
parliament is constructed as the representative of the people, therefore,
for accountability to the party he represent, recall mechanism is very
relevant. By means of such mechanism, the people are considered of
remain to be able to control their representatives. Whereas, the issue
regarding who will perform the recall is considered as technical issue
relating to the general election system. In the election system wherein
the voter directly chooses the name of a person as his representative,
then it is logical if the recall is performed by the voter, for example,
through petition mechanism. Whereas, in the election system by elect-
ing political party as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution, in the case of
election for the member of the House of People’s Representatives and
the Regional House of People’s Representatives, it is also logical if the
recall is performed by the nominating party.
Decision Number 014/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
review over Advocate Law: Advocate Organization as
State Organ
The Petitioner in this material review case submits material review
over Article 1 numbers 1 and 4, Article 28 paragraph (1) and paragraph
(3), Article 32 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) of Law Number 18 of the
Year 2003 regarding Advocate. According to the Petitioner, the provi-
sion is contradictory to Article 28A, Article 28C Paragraph (2), Article
28D Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (3), and Article 28E Paragraph (3) of
the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner considers the provision of impair-
ing Legal Alliance of Indonesian Advocates Association (Persekutuan
Hukum Ikatan Advokat Indonesia/Ikadin).
In this decision, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the
Advocate Law which directive is heading towards “single bar organiza-
tion” is not contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. According to the infor-
mation from PERADI and eight organizations carrying out the temporary
task of Advocates Organization before the establishment of such organi-
zation, which are, Ikadin, AAI, IPHI, SPI, HAPI, AKHI, HKHPM, and APSI
remain exist however their authority as Advocates profession organiza-
tion, which is the case of preparing ethic code, examining, supervising
and dismissing Advocates will officially become the authority of PERADI.
Annual Report 2006

Therefore, it cannot be stated that Article 28 Paragraph (1) of the Advo-
cate Law eliminates the existence of those eight organizations, which
therefore, violates the principle of freedom to have union and to assem-
ble as stipulated by the 1945 Constitution.
The provisions of Article 5 Paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law grant
a status to the Advocates as law enforcer having equal position with
other law enforcers. Therefore, will be required an organization which
will be the sole Advocates profession coordinating institution as meant
in Article 28 Paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law. PERADI Organization
as the sole Advocates profession coordinating institution is basically a
state organ in broad definition which is independent in nature (independ-
ent state organ) that also performs state function.
The injunction of the decision declares that the petition of the Pe-
titioner is overruled for its entirety. This decision is recited in a publicly
open plenary court session on Thursday, November 30, 2006.
Decision Number 018/PUU-IV/2006 regarding the ma-
terial review over Penal Procedural Code: Arrangement
of Arrest in Article 21 Paragraph (1) of Criminal Proce-
dural Code is not Contradictory to the 1945 Constitu-
tion
Photo: Denny
Petitioner’s attorney in the review of Code of Criminal Procedures.
Petitioner submits material review over the phrase “committing
criminal act” and the phrase “in the case there is any condition giving
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
rise to anxiety” in Article 21 Paragraph (1) of Law Number 8 of the Year
1981 regarding Penal Procedural Code (Hukum Acara Pidana/KUHAP)
are contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner in this case
argues that absolute authority of the investigator/public prosecutor to
arrest a person requires the presence of rational supervision conducted
by judiciary institution (judicial supervision of pre trial procedure). Closed
and confidential investigation causes anxiety in the community that the
investigator will use excessive authority (over exceeding power) to ob-
tain confession from the suspect or witness information.
Legal consideration of the Constitutional Court in this decision
states that arrest is a required action in the law enforcement process,
even though in the arrest itself there is a limitation towards human rights.
Therefore, arrest must be stipulated by law which in such law will be
stipulated the procedure and clear requirements. It is conducted to avoid
violation of human rights. The effort to minimize violation of human rights
in an arrest is conducted, among others, by determining the require-
ments of arrest and determining the ground for arrest and by giving le-
gal effort to anyone who is imposed with an arrest.
The presence of law institution (rechtsinstituut) of arrest cannot
be eliminated from the penal procedural law. It is only required to de-
crease the impact of arrest institution towards violation of human rights.
The decrease of such impact can be conducted by determining the ra-
tional measure of ground for making an arrest and the method for creat-
ing control institution. Provision of Article 21 Paragraph (1) of the Penal
Procedural Code is, by norm, not excessive or extreme, therefore, in
accordance with Article 28J Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The
existence of Article 21 Paragraph (1) of Penal Procedural Code is still in
the limit of justified rationality. Therefore, the Constitutional Court is of
the opinion that the argumentation of the Petitioner declaring that Arti-
cle 21 Paragraph (1) of the Penal Procedural Code is contradictory to
the 1945 Constitution is unfounded. The injunction of this decision de-
clares that the petition of the petitioner is overruled in its entirety as
recited in a publicly open Plenary Court Session on Wednesday, De-
cember 20, 2006.
41
The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court
Decision Number 023/PUU-IV/2006 regarding the ma-
terial review over State Receivables Affairs Commit-
tee (UU PUPN): Advocate Profession is not Legal Sta-
tus
The provision petitioned to be materially reviewed is Article 12
Paragraph (2) of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 49 Gov-
ernment Regulation of the Year 1960 regarding State Receivables Af-
fairs Committee (Panitia Urusan Piutang Negara/UU PUPN) is contra-
dictory to Article 28 letter I Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
Towards such petition, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion
that even though the provisions of Article 12 Paragraph (2) of the Law
regarding State Receivables Affairs Committee (UU PUPN) is consid-
ered excessive, however it does not meant that such provision is dis-
criminative. The Petitioners argue that such discriminative treatment is
conducted in the social status as Advocate. The Constitutional Court is
Constitutional Court session is always attended by the public.
of the opinion that the argumentation of the Petitioners is not appropri-
ate since the profession of advocate/lawyer is not a social status as
argued by the Petitioners. Article 12 Paragraph (2) of the Law regarding
State Receivables Affairs Committee (UU PUPN) contains prohibition to
delegate the state receivables affairs to lawyers (advocates) since, ac-
cording to the law, such matter is delegated to the State Receivables
Affairs Committee (PUPN) which is inter-departmental in nature whose
42
membership consisting of government officials. Therefore, difference of
authority granted to the State Receivables Affairs Committee (PUPN)
with the professional right of lawyers/advocates cannot be compared to
each other and cannot be used as the perimeter of discrimination since
such prohibition also applies to all third parties besides advocate/law-
yer. Hence, Article 12 Paragraph (2) of the Law regarding State Re-
ceivables Affairs Committee (UU PUPN) is not contradictory to Article
28I Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Based on the matters men-
tioned above, the petition is overruled. This Decision is recited in a pub-
licly open Plenary Court Session on Thursday, December 21, 2006.
C. Decisions of Material Review Declar-
ing the Petitions of Being Unaccept-
able
Decision Number 017/PUU-III/2005 regarding material
review over Supreme Court Law and Judicial Commis-
sion Law: Constitutional Right Must Concern the In-
terest of the Petitioner
Decision Number 017/PUU-III/2005 is review over Law No. 5 of
the Year 2004 regarding the Amendment to Law of the Republic of Indo-
nesia Number 14 of the Year 1985 regarding the Supreme Court (UU
MA) and Law No. 22 of the Year 2004 regarding the Judicial Commis-
sion (UU KY). Provisions being petitioned to be materially reviewed are
Article 11 paragraph 1, Article 12 paragraphs (1), (2), Article 13 para-
graphs (1), (2) and Article 32 paragraph (2) of the Supreme Court Law
(UU MA) and Article 21, Article 22 paragraph (1) letter e and Article 23
paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6) of the Judicial Commission Law which prin-
cipally stipulate supervision and the taking of measure towards judges.
The injunction of this decision declares the petition of the Petitioners is
unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). This Decision is recited in
the Plenary Court Session of the Constitutional Court on Friday, Janu-
ary 6, 2006.
The Petitioners argue that by the presence of the provisions of law
being petitioned, the supervision and taking of measures towards the
conduct of certain judges cannot be carried out effectively. Judges who
are committing the crime reported by the Petitioners are not sanctioned
by the Head of the Supreme Court, even more, they are protected. The
Annual Report 2006

Petitioners of review of law on Correctional Institution
materialization of the protection by the Supreme Court is by issuing Cir-
cular Letter No. 04 of the Year 2002 which prohibits judges, registrar,
and bailiff to fulfill the summon of investigator for examination. The ac-
tion of the Supreme Court by issuing the Circular Letter impairs the right
and authority of the Petitioners since the legal process towards the judges
cannot be carried out and conversely it was stopped by the investigator.
This is considered as law discrimination and violates the right of the
Petitioners which is contradictory to Article 27 paragraph (1) in conjunc-
tion with Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 24B paragraph (1) of the
1945 Constitution.
The Constitutional Court declares the argumentation of the Peti-
tioners regarding the constitutional right mentioned in Article 27 para-
graph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, ac-
cording to the Constitutional Court is not the constitutional right relating
to law being petitioned to be materially reviewed. Article 27 paragraph
(1) of the 1945 Constitution is related to the right of the citizen and resi-
dent for having equal right before the law and the government and the
prohibition of discriminative treatment. The argument presented by the
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
Petitioners regarding the presence of Cir-
cular Letter of the Supreme Court
Number 4 of the Year 2002, which does
not allow Judge, Registrar, and Bailiff to
fulfill the summon of the investigator over
the case which he is handling at that
present time, does not in any way relate
to one constitutional right being impaired
by the effective application of the Su-
preme Court Law (UU MA) and the Judi-
cial Commission Law (UU KY) to the ex-
tent concerning the articles being peti-
tioned to be materially reviewed, which
in their entirety is relating to supervision
over the judges, conducted by the Su-
Photo:Denny
preme Court or by the Judicial Commis-
sion.
The Constitutional Court is also of
the opinion that in relation to the inde-
pendence of Judicial Commission in per-
forming its authority stipulated in Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945
Constitution, the constitutional right of the Petitioners is not impaired.
The constitutional right does not relate to the Petitioners, instead, it re-
lates to other party, therefore, the Petitioners cannot base themselves
on Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as the basis to
construct the existence of constitutional right of the Petitioners which is
being impaired, both actually and potentially, arising from the causal
relation (causal verband) with the effective application of the Supreme
Court Law (UU MA) and the Judicial Commission Law (UU KY).
Decision No. 018/PUU-III/2005 regarding material re-
view over Child Protection Law: State Liability in Child
Protection
The Petitioner in this material review case over Article 86 of Child
Protection Law against the 1945 Constitution is dr. Ruyandi M. Hutasoit,
an Indonesian citizen having the profession as doctor who in his activity
often provide and deliver religious study, religious education, religious
guidance, religious enlightenment and community service according to
43
The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court
Constitutional Court Plenary Session
the religion of the Petitioner (Christian) to adults and adolescents which
are conducted in front of the public in church, places of worship, public
meeting hall/building and in educational places.
The Petitioner argues of having constitutional right granted by Ar-
ticle 28, Article 28E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution which are
the freedom of union and assemble, express the thought orally and in
writing, and the freedom to embrace religion and perform religious serv-
ices according to his religion, and to choose education and teachings.
In addition, the petitioner also argues of having the right over the free-
dom to belief in his faith, state his mind and standpoint, according to
conscience as assured in Article 28E paragraph (2) of the 1945 Consti-
tution.
The Petitioner considers his constitutional right has been impaired
by the application of Article 86 of Child Protection Law which reads “Every
person who intentionally uses deceit, series of lies, or persuade a child
to choose other religion not based on his/her own will, even though it is
realized or should be properly assumed that such child has not yet have
sufficient intellectual and is not yet responsible according to the religion
which he/she embraces will be punished with imprisonment of at the
most 5 (five) years and/or penalty of at the most Rp. 100.000.000,00
(one hundred million rupiah)”. Due to the presence of such provision,
the Petitioner is worried and not free in disseminating his religion and it
also causes the lessening of the freedom of religious and the right of
44
children to get education.
In this decision, the Constitutional Court declares that the consti-
tutional right possessed by the Petitioner does not have any causal re-
lation (causal verband) with the provision of Article 86 of Child Protec-
tion Law. Article 86 of Child Protection Law does not at all lessen the
constitutional right of the Petitioner as assured in Article 28E paragraph
(1) and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. On the contrary, the pro-
vision as contained in Article 86 of Child Protection Law is the affirma-
tion that the state is responsible to protect the right of every child who
does not yet have sufficient intelligence and is not yet capable of being
responsible from the possibility of deceit, lies, or persuasion which cause
such child to choose certain religion not based on his/her conscience.
Therefore, the elements of losses of constitutional right as required
by Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law are not ful-
filled, consequently, the Petitioner is declared of not having the legal
standing to submit the petition for the material review of Article 86 of
Child Protection Law. This Decision is recited in a publicly open Plenary
Court Session of the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, January 17, 2006.
Annual Report 2006
 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Decision Number 022/PUU-III/2005 regarding material
review of Correctional Institution Law: The Granting
of Remission is under the Domain of Executive Au-
thority
paragraph (1) point i and paragraph (2) of the Correctional Institution,
as meant by Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law.
Therefore, the petition is declared unacceptable.

The Petitioner of this material review case is the Indonesian Advo-

Decision Number 001/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
cates Association who submits petition for material review of Article 14 review over the decision of the Supreme Court Number
paragraph (1) and its elucidation, and Article 14 paragraph (2) of Law 01PK/Pilkada/2005: Closing Case of Election for the
Number 12 of the Year 1995 regarding Correctional Institution. Those
Head of Region of Depok City
provisions stipulate the granting of remission by the President. The Pe- Case Number 001/PUU-IV/2006 is a case petition submitted by
titioner is of the opinion that it is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution, Drs. H. Badrul Kamal, M.M. and K.H. Syihabuddin Ahmad, B.A. The
Article 24 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 14 paragraph (1) and Petitioners are the pair of candidates for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of
paragraph (2) since remission is a form of intervention of executive au- Depok City as the participants of Election for the Head of Region of
thority towards independent judiciary authority to organize judiciary in Depok City for the Year 2005. The Petitioners submit petition for the
order to enforce the law and justice. Whereas, court is a part of judicial material review over the Decision of Judicial Review of the Supreme
authority separated from executive/government authority under the Presi- Court No. 01 PK/PILKADA/2005 in the case of dispute over the Election
dent. In the consideration of this decision, it is stated that authority to for the Head of Region of Depok City. The injunction of this decision
lessen punishment (remission) may be given to a branch of executive states that the petition is unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). This
authority. Since, the lessening of punishment has long been acknowl- Decision is recited in the Plenary Court Session of the Constitutional
edged in the imprisonment system, moreover, in the correctional institu- Court on Wednesday, January 25, 2006.
tion system, both are related to the scope of responsibility of the holder The Petitioners develop law construction that the decision of the
of state governing authority.
In the court proceeding, the Petitioner is ap-
parently neither categorized as convicted crimi-
nal nor representing the interest of convicted
criminal, therefore, there is not any constitutional
losses of the Petitioner in a specific (special) and
actual or potential nature. Even if the Petitioners
argue that AAK organization has a vision to im-
plement law and Human Rights enforcement in-
tegrally in the broadest meaning and has inter-
est in order that the 1945 Constitution is imple-
mented consistently and consequently, the Con-
stitutional Court considers that the vision is too
general, not specific. The vision of AAK cannot
Photo: Denny

be used as the entry point to develop law con-

struction, therefore, the Petitioner as if suffer
constitutional losses in a specific and actual or
Hearing on the Examination of Supreme Court Decision (Depok Local Election) is always
potential nature with the application of Article 14 enthusiastically attended by the public

Annual Report 2006 45

The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court
Photo: Denny
Electronic media covering the review of Law on Supreme Court and Law on
Judicial Commission
Supreme Court Number 01/ PK/PILKADA/2005 is the jurisprudence and
the equivalent jurisprudence or even jurisprudence which is higher than
laws. This decision equates the decision of the Supreme Court and the
jurisprudence and therefore equates jurisprudence and law is not the
appropriate opinion. Formally and materially, law is not the same as
jurisprudence. The decision of the Supreme Court is judiciary decision
(een judicieele vonnis) included in the category of individual and con-
crete norms and is not publicly binding (erga omnes). Judiciary decision
only binds the parties (inter-partes). The decision of the Supreme Court
or jurisprudence is not statutory regulations having the nature of gen-
eral and abstract norms. Those two types of legal norms cannot be
equated to each other.
In addition, not all decisions of the Supreme Court are always fol-
lowed up by the subsequent court decision (constante jurisprudentie)
and become permanent jurisprudences (vaste jurisprudentie). Even if
they become permanent jurisprudences, it does not make them as the
object of authority of the Constitutional Court to materially review them
in the meaning of Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
46
What being meant by “Law” in the framework of material review
over law against the 1945 Constitution is law as meant in Article 20 of
the 1945 Constitution and Article 1 point 3 of Law Number 10 of the
Year 2004 regarding the Formulation of Statutory Regulations, which is
“Statutory regulations are formulated by the House of People’s Repre-
sentatives with the approval of the President”. It is supported by the
provisions of Article 51 paragraph (3), Article 56 paragraph (4) and para-
graph (5), and Article 57 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Consti-
tutional Court Law. Therefore, the petition of the Petitioners is beyond
the scope of authority (onbevoegheid des rechters) of the Constitutional
Court.
Besides, the provisions of Article 51 paragraph (3), Article 56 para-
graph (4) and paragraph (5), and Article 57 paragraph (1) and paragraph
(2) of the Constitutional Court Law further affirm that the law intended to
be reviewed against the 1945 Constitution is law as meant by the 1945
Constitution. In other words, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion
that the petition a quo is not included in the scope of its authority and
the Petitioners do not have legal standing, therefore, the petition of the
Petitioners is unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). With this deci-
sion, the conflict related to the Election for the Head of Region of Depok
City is ended and both of the parties accept the decision of the Constitu-
tional Court as a final and binding decision.
Decision Number 007/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
review over Judicial Commission Law and Supreme
Court Law: Losses due to Judiciary Practices are not
the Authority of the Constitutional Court
The Petitioner of case number 007/PUU-IV/2006 is FX. Cahyo
Baroto. According to the petitioner, the existence of Supreme Court Law,
Article 32 paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) concerns the sentence that
the Supreme Court supervises the conduct and action of the judges”,
Article 11 paragraph (1), Article 12 paragraphs (1), (2), Article 13 para-
graphs (1), (2), concerns the sentence “upon the proposal of the Head/
Supreme Court”, such provisions have conflict of interest towards the
Judicial Commission Law, especially Article 21, Article 22 paragraph (1)
letter e and Article 23 paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), two provisions of
those articles and paragraphs are overlapping with regard to supervi-
sion, which causes the independence of the Judicial Commission is not
Annual Report 2006
 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

functioning/working effectively, therefore, it is not in accordance with/ ter, the Constitutional Court cannot assess it.
contradictory to Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Arti- The Petitioner or the attorney of the Petitioner should completely
cle 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 27 paragraph understand that the authority of the Constitutional Court has been stipu-
(1) of the 1945 Constitution. lated by the 1945 Constitution and the Constitutional Court Law, there-
The Constitutional Court perceives that even though it is correct fore, the Constitutional Court does not automatically and unfoundedly
that the Petitioner has suffered losses in the judiciary process at the declare itself of being authorized to trial an issue, in this case the Circu-
court under the scope of authority of the Supreme Court, the losses by lar Letter of the Supreme Court No. 4 of the Year 2002 which by the
any means do not have any relation to the provisions of those two laws Petitioner is considered as the cause of the losses as argued by the
argued by the Petitioner to be contradictory to Article 27 paragraph (1), Petitioner. In addition, according to the prevailing general principle in
Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28I paragraph (2), Article 28H para- the judiciary sector wherein the judges are basically supposed to be
graph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. The constitutional rights of the Peti- passive, then, it is impossible for the Panel of Judges to actively “teach”
tioner as contained in Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph the Petitioner to construct the argumentation of his petition in such a
(1), Article 28I paragraph (2), Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Con- manner that will overstep the limitation of its obligation to give advice as
stitution, which are used as the basis for the submission of the petition, stipulated by Article 39 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law.
by any means, are not impaired by the application of the provisions of The Constitutional Court decides that the petition of the petitioner is
the Supreme Court Law and the Judicial Commission Law as described unacceptable.
above, since there is not any causal relation (causal verband) between
those constitutional rights and the provisions of the law petitioned to be Decision Number 009/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
materially reviewed. Even if it is correct that the Petitioner suffers losses,
review over Advocate Law: The Essence and Main
Function of Transitional Provision
the causes of such losses are not the provisions in both of the laws a
quo (the Supreme Court Law and the Judicial Commission Law), instead, Decision Number 009/PUU-IV/2006 is a decision for material re-
such losses is caused by judiciary practices, wherein towards this mat- view over Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of the Year 2003 re-
garding Advocate. The petitioners in this
case are A.Wahyu Purwana, S.H., M.H., M.
Widhi Datu Wicaksono, S.H., A. Dhatu
Haryo Yudo, S.H., and Mohammad Sofyan,
S.H. The injunction of this decision declares
that the petition is unacceptable (niet
ontvankelijk verklaard). This decision is re-
cited in a Plenary Court Session of the Con-
stitutional Court on Wednesday, July 12,
2006.
Article 32 paragraph (1) of Advocate
Law, Chapter XII Transitional Provision
reads as follows, “Advocates, legal advi-
Photo: Denny

sors, practitioner lawyers and legal consult-

ants appointed at the time this law is effec-
Constitutional Justices are listening to the Explanation of the Petitioners during the Court Plenary Session

Annual Report 2006 47

The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court
Petitioner and His attorney during the Review of Advocate Law.
tive, are declared to be Advocates as stipulated in this law”. Article 32
paragraph (1) has impaired the First Petitioner and his staff since the
First Petitioner cannot give or transfer his work even though only to pro-
vide legal consultancy to the person requiring such consultancy because
he is hampered by the presence of equal position between advocates
and legal consultant.
In this decision, the Constitutional Court declares that Article 32
paragraph (1) of Advocate Law is a Transitional Provision containing
adjustment between the already prevailing statutory regulations and the
new statutory regulation starting to be effective in order to be able to run
smoothly and not causing legal problems. The transitional provision usu-
ally contains legal principle regarding the previously acquired rights or
verkregenrechten) to be remain acknowledged. In addition, transitional
provision is required to ensure legal certainty (rechtszekerheid) for the
continuity of right, and to prevent the vacuum of law (rechtsvacuum);
Subject matter of Article 32 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law is
conversely considered of acknowledging the rights of advocates, legal
advisors, practitioner lawyers and legal consultants who have been pre-
viously appointed and acknowledge them as advocates as stipulated in
the Advocate Law. Article 32 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law is not a
provision intending to confuse the definition of advocate, legal advisor,
practitioner lawyer and legal consultant; instead, it is an acknowledge-
ment of the former legal status into the new legal status according to the
48
Advocate Law. It is beneficial to those who previously have the status of
advocate.
Something that is benefiting other party cannot be construed of
impairing and will not automatically impair the Petitioners. For a person
who has not yet possess certain status according to the law, will conse-
quentially have to subject to all provisions according to the new law, in
this case the Advocate Law, as stipulated in Article 32 paragraph (2) of
the Advocate Law. It is indeed the essence and main function of a tran-
sitional provision in a statutory regulation. Therefore, the provision of
Article 32 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law, by any means, does not
have causal relation (causal verband) with constitutional right, thus it
does not impair the constitutional right of the Petitioners. Thus, the Pe-
titioners do not have legal standing.
Decision Number 010/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
review over Corruption Elimination Commission Law
(UU KPTPK): Losses of the Petitioner is a Critic to-
wards the Existence and Performance of the Corrup-
tion Elimination Commission
The Petitioner is Indonesian Law Community (Masyarakat Hukum
Indonesia). The Petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to materi-
ally review several articles in the Corruption Elimination Commission
Law (UU KPK) which are the core articles of the Corruption Elimination
Commission Law (UU KPK), therefore, indirectly, the petitioner requests
the Constitutional Court to annul the Corruption Elimination Commis-
sion Law (UU KPK) in its entirety. The Petitioner considers that it does
not receive assurance of legal certainty and protection because the ac-
tive role of the Petitioner in eliminating corrupt act, which according to
the Petitioner is assured by Article 41 of the Corruption Elimination Com-
mission Law (UU KPK), which is in the form of report regarding the pres-
ence of assumption of corrupt act, among others, the report of the Peti-
tioner to the Corruption Elimination Commission under Number 10637/
PIMP/KPK/2/2006, dated February 20, 2006, in the incident widely known
as “SUDIGATE”, it is apparent that the report was absolutely not fol-
lowed up by the Corruption Elimination Commission.
However, the Petitioner cannot explain the losses of its constitu-
tional right and/or authority in its qualification as individual Indonesian
citizen as the consequence of the application of the provisions in the
Annual Report 2006

Corruption Elimination Commission Law (UU KPK) which is petitioned
to be materially reviewed. The matter considered by the Petitioner as
losses of constitutional right and/or authority is more appropriate if
deemed as critics towards the existence and performance of the Cor-
ruption Elimination Commission, instead of the constitutionality of the
Corruption Elimination Commission Law (UU KPK) in the context of
material review of law. This case is not only unqualified as meant in
Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law (UUMK) but
also unqualified as meant in Article 51 paragraph (3) of the Constitu-
tional Court Law (UUMK). Therefore, the Constitutional Court declares
the petition of the Petitioner of being unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk
verklaard).
Decision Number 011/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
review over Tax Court Law: “Repetition” of Case Ex-
amination of Tax Court
The Petitioners in this decision are the tax payers who consider
that their constitutional right has been impaired by the provision of Arti-
cle 36 paragraph (4) of the Tax Court Law. The provision that an appeal
may only be submitted if the outstanding amount has been paid 50%
(fifty percent), not only inflicting losses in the form of rupiah, but also
unfairness since it limits the right of the tax payers to take legal effort to
obtain justice. The Petitioners consider Article 36 paragraph (4) of the
Tax Court Law, not only contradictory to the 1945 Constitution as stated
in numbers 1 and 2 above, but also contradictory to Law Number 6 of
the Year 1983 regarding General Provisions and Taxation Procedure as
mentioned in the considering section of the Tax Court Law.
The Constitutional Court has once considered and decided peti-
tion for material review over Article 36 paragraph (4) of the Tax Court
Law against the 1945 Constitution as contained in the Decision Number
004/PUU-II/2004 recited in a publicly open Plenary Court Session on
December 13, 2004, which injunction reads as follows,”Declares the
petition of the Petitioner of being overruled”. Article 60 of the Constitu-
tional Court Law (UUMK) reads, “Towards the subject matter of para-
graphs, articles, and/or parts of the law being materially reviewed, can-
not be requested repetition of material review”. Meanwhile, Article 42
paragraph (2) of Constitutional Court Regulation 06/PMK/2005 states,
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
“… petition for material review over the subject matter of paragraphs,
articles, and/or parts which are the same as other case which has been
previously decided by the Court, may be requested repetition of mate-
rial review provided that the constitutional requirements which become
the ground for the relevant petition are different”.
Since the ground of the Petitioners is not different from the grounds
presented by the Petitioner in Case Number 004/PUU-II/2004, thus by
remain relying on the reason and consideration as contained in the above
Decision, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the petition for
material review over Article 36 paragraph (4) of Tax Court Law against
the 1945 Constitution submitted by the Petitioners does not comply with
the constitutionality requirements.
Decision Number 015/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
review over Advocate Law: No Constitutional Losses
on the part of the Petitioner
The petition of the Petitioner is regarding material review over Ar-
ticle 32 Paragraph (3) of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number
18 of the Year 2003 regarding Advocate (State Gazette of the Republic
of Indonesia of the Year 2003 Number 49 which stipulates the task and
authority of Advocates Organization including the establishment of Peradi
and the election of the management of Peradi through consensus. Ac-
Photo: Denny
Petitioner’s Attorney, Adnan Buyung Nasution, in a Court Session.
49
The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court
cording to the Petitioner, it must be stated of not legally binding since it
has except the period of two years. The subject matter of Article 32 Para-
graph (3) of the Advocate Law has been materially reviewed and de-
cided by the Constitutional Court in Case Number 019/PUU-I/2003.
In this decision, it is declared that even though the Petitioner has
fulfilled the qualification as Indonesian citizen individual Petitioner and
has constitutional right granted by Article 28C Paragraph (1) an Para-
graph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, however, there is not any relation
between the constitutional right and application of Article 32 Paragraph
(3) of the Advocate Law and there is also not any losses of constitutional
right of the Petitioner, both actually and potentially, and even if the peti-
tion is granted, it will not have any influence whatsoever towards the
Petitioner. Therefore, the injunction of the Decision states that the peti-
tion of the Petitioner is unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). This
decision is recited in a publicly open Plenary Court Session on Thurs-
day, dated November 30, 2006.
Decision Number 020/PUU-IV/2006 regarding material
review over the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Law: The Lost of Object of Petition
The Petitioner in this case submits petition for material review over
the Considering Section; Article 1 Paragraph (1); Article 1 Paragraph
(2); and Article 1 Paragraph (5) of Law Number 27 of the Year 2004
regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR). However,
considering that there is a decision of Case Number 006/PUU-IV/2006
which is recited on the same day before the recitation of this decision
which declares that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Law (UU
KKR) does not have binding legal force, and such decision has perma-
nent legal force upon being recited in the publicly open Plenary Court
Session, then the petition has lost is object (objectum litis).
Therefore, the petition must be declared of being unacceptable (niet
ontvankelijk verklaard) since the law which is considered of having im-
paired his constitutional right no longer has binding legal force. This de-
cision is recited on publicly open Plenary Court Session of the Constitu-
tional Court on Thursday, December 7, 2006.
50
D. Decisions on the Disputes over the
Authorities of State Institutions
Case Number 002/SKLN-IV/2006, the Regent/Deputy
Regent of Depok against the Regional General Elec-
tion Commission of Depok City: The Authority of the
Regional General Election Commission is not the Au-
thority Granted by the 1945 Constitution
Decision Number 002/SKLN-IV/2006 is a decision of case regard-
ing the Dispute over the Authority of State Institution submitted by the
Regent/Deputy Regent of Depok against the General Election Commis-
sion of Depok City. The Petitioners are also the pair of candidates for
the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Depok City in the Election for the Head
of Region of Depok City in the Year 2005. The Petitioners argue that the
General Election Commission of Depok City as a state institution does
not have authority to submit petition for Judicial Review over the deci-
sion of the High Court of West Java Number 01/Pilkada/2005/PT.Bdg to
the Supreme Court.
In its legal consideration, the Constitutional Court declares that
the dispute between the Petitioner and the Defendant is not dispute over
the constitutional authority as meant in Article 24C paragraph (1) of the
1945 Constitution and Article 10 paragraph (1) letter b of the Constitu-
tional Court Law. The action of the General Election Commission of
Depok City is not based on the authority granted by the 1945 Constitu-
tion, instead, it derives from the presence of authority as meant in Arti-
cle 66 paragraph (1) of the Regional Government Law containing the
tasks and authorities of the Regional General Election Commission in
the election of the Head of Region and the Deputy Head of Region, there-
fore, the object of the dispute is not an object of dispute over constitu-
tional authority as stipulated by Article 61 of the Constitutional Court
Law.
The General Election Commission of Depok City is the Regional
General Election Commission whose authority is granted by law, which
is the Regional Government Law. In the election of the head of the re-
gion, according to the Regional Government Law and as admitted by
the Petitioner, the Regional General Election Commission is not a part
of the General Election Commission as meant in Article 22E of the 1945
Constitution. Therefore, even though the Regional General Election
Annual Report 2006

Photo: Denny
Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court with Nurmahmudi and Badrul Kamal
after the reading of the Court decision on Depok Local Election.
Commission is a state institution, however, in the convening of Election
for the Head of Region, its authority is not the authority granted by the
Constitution, as meant in the 1945 Constitution and the Constitutional
Court Law.
Related to the argumentation of the Petitioner which states that
the submission of Judicial Review by the General Election Commission
of Depok City is not an authority granted by Article 66 of the Regional
Government Law, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that it must
be differed the authority and right deriving from procedural law. Submis-
sion of judicial review is indeed not an organic authority of the General
Election Commission of Depok City. However, it is a right to obtain jus-
tice in the judiciary process, as possessed by every subject of law hav-
ing the freedom to search and obtain justice. Therefore, the submission
of petition for judicial review cannot be constructed as the basis to de-
termine the presence of dispute over constitutional authority between
state institutions. The injunction of this decision declares the petition of
the Petitioner is unacceptable (niet ontvankelijk verklaard). This deci-
sion is recited in a Plenary Court Session of the Constitutional Court on
Wednesday, January 25, 2006.
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
Decision Number 004/SKLN-IV/2006, the Regent/
Deputy Regent of Bekasi against the President, the
Minister of Home Affairs, and the Regional House of
People’s Representatives of Bekasi Regency: The Prin-
ciple of A Contrario Actus Must be Applied Limitedly
Decision Number 004/SKLN-IV/2006 is a Dispute over Authority
of the State Institutions of Regent/Deputy Regent of Bekasi against the
President of the Republic of Indonesia, the Minister of Home Affairs,
and the Regional House of People’s Representatives of Bekasi Regency
in relation to the dismissal of Drs. H. M. Saleh Manaf and Drs. Solihin
Sari (Regent/Deputy Regent of Bekasi) from their office by the Minister
of Home Affairs and action of the Regional House of People’s Repre-
sentatives of Bekasi stipulates the Decision of the Regional House of
People’s Representatives of Bekasi Regency Number 06/KEP/172.2-
DPRD/2006 dated February 28, 2006, regarding the Approval of the
Regional House of People’s Representatives over the stipulation of Draft
Regional Regulation regarding Regional Revenue and Expenditure
Budget of Bekasi Regency for the Year 2006. The injunction of this deci-
sion declares the petition of the Petitioner is unacceptable (niet
ontvankelijk verklaard). This decision is recited in a Plenary Court Ses-
sion of the Constitutional Court on Wednesday, July 12, 2006.
Saleh Manaf and Solihin Sari consider that the action of the Minis-
ter of Home Affairs by dismissing them from the office as the Regent/
Deputy Regenty of Bekasi Regency is an action beyond his authority
(ultra vires) as stipulated in the constitution since such action is actually
performed without going through the lawful dismissal mechanism as stipu-
lated in Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution which stipu-
lates that the Regent as the Head of Regional Government is elected in
a democratic manner. The election as meant at that time is referring to
the election mechanism as stipulated in Law No. 22 of the Year 1999, as
convened by the Regional House of People’s Representatives. Accord-
ing to them, based on the principle of a contrario actus (annulment of a
legal action must be conducted according to the same method and by
the same institution in its establishment) which applies universally in
the law science, then the authorized party to dismiss the Head of the
Region is the Regional House of People’s Representatives. This is re-
lated to the presence of provisions contained in Article 29 up to Article
32 of Law Number 32 of the Year 2004 (the Regional Government Law)
51
The Implementation of the Authorities of The Constitutional Court

which stipulates the involvement of the Regional House of People’s

Representatives in the dismissal of the head of region.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the
principle of a contrario actus must be applied limitedly, which is when
interpreting provisions which do not clearly stipulate the procedure for
the dismissal of the head of region. In addition, Article 18 paragraph (4)
is indeed clearly intended as a norm merely concerning the procedure
for the election and does not stipulate the dismissal of the Governor,
Regent, and Mayor. The provision which stipulates the grounds and pro-
cedure for the dismissal of the head of regional government is delegated
to the stipulation of law. Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitu-
tion becomes one of the legal basis for the formulation of Regional Gov-
ernment Law which is related to the procedure for the election of the
head of the regional government, however, it is not the sole legal basis
to determine the grounds for the dismissal of the head of regional gov-
ernment. Besides democratic dismissal involving the Regional House of
People’s Representatives, the law may, in a democratic manner, add
other methods having rational and constitutional grounds, which is Arti-
cle 18 paragraph (7) of the 1945 Constitution, to dismiss the head of
regional government as described in Article 30 paragraph (2) of Law
Number 32 of the Year 2004.

52 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

General and Justice

Administration Support

Annual Report 2006 59

General and Justice Administration Support
B orn as an order of a Law to periodically report any activities
relating to cases and administrative tasks, the Constitutional Court has
made it a tradition to prepare Annual Report as one of the forms of pub-
lic accountability. This tradition has persisted from the first year of es-
tablishment of the Constitutional Court in the year 2003 which makes
this 2006 Annual Report as the fourth in the tradition of preparation of
annual report.
The accountability principle is in accordance with the provision of
Article 13 of Law Number 24 of the Year 2003 regarding the Constitu-
tional Court which becomes the ground for the preparation of this an-
nual report. The objective is none other than in order that the public can
assess the performance of the Constitutional Court and in order that the
Constitutional Court can reflect from the implementation of activities in
the previous year for the improvement of professionalism in the future.
Self-reflect and courageous to be assessed is the asset to reach suc-
cess.
This annual report summarizes all activities conducted by the Con-
stitutional Court during one year period. Activities presented in this re-
port are the entire program relating to the implementation of authorities
of the Constitutional Court and the administrative tasks performed by
60
Foreword from
Secretary General of
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
the Secretariat General and Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court
in the scope of general administration and justice administration.
Based on the arranged working program stages, this year of 2006
is the stage for achieving professionalism stage. The final objective of
this working program stages is the materialization of administrative task
organization by the entire working levels of the Secretariat General and
Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court professionally supported by
modern system and equipments. In the framework of achieving such
objective, at the present time is being conducted various programs and
activities. Those programs are among others, the construction of build-
ings, the procurement of goods and services, creation of information
system relating to the daily tasks and works such as case management
system (CMS), employee affairs information system, library information
system, financial information system, etc. In addition to programs which
bring about material or physical results, the Secretariat General and
Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court perform activities in the frame-
work of improving the capacity and capability of every employee who
will use the information system and equipments which have been mod-
ernly developed.
Documentation of activities of the Constitutional Court during the
year 2006 in this annual report is an effort to record and note down the
path of the Constitutional Court which is not apart from weaknesses and
imperfection. For such purpose, suggestion and input from all parties
are always expected for improvement in the future.
Jakarta, December 31, 2006
Janedjri M. Gaffar
Annual Report 2006
 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Foreword of The Registrar

J
Review (PUU) of 36 cases
and cases of Dispute over
ourney of Registrar Office in providing justice administrative sup- the Authorities of State In-
port to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (MK-RI) in stitutions (SKLN) of 5
the year 2006, especially in the receiving of case petition, court pro- cases. Of those 41 cases,
ceeding process, closely assist Constitutional Justices in adopting deci- have been decided 32
sions, convey decision to the parties up to the publication of certain cases consisting of 29
decisions in the State Report of the Republic of Indonesia, have been cases of Material Review
well recorded in detail in this book of Laporan Tahunan Tahun 2006 (PUU) and 3 cases of Dis-
[Annual Report of the Year 2006]. The implementation of those tasks is pute over the Authorities of
closely related to the judiciary process in the state administrative sector State Institutions (SKLN). Therefore, there still remain 9 cases consist-

in the framework of safeguarding the constitution of the Republic of In- ing of 7 cases of Material Review (PUU) and 2 cases of Dispute over the

donesia. Authorities of State Institutions (SKLN). The total remaining cases are

Based on the evaluation result of the judiciary system organiza- cases received and registered at the end of September up to December

tion of the Constitutional Court in the year 2006, the Registrar Office in 2006. The handling of those cases is conducted by simple and prompt

the effort to improve the performance of all working levels in the year process. It can be well traced back with regard to settlement period and

2007, has applied various programs and activities, among others by or- total number of court proceedings being convened.
ganizing intensive training for all justice administrative staff of the Con- The effectiveness of the tasks of registrar office cannot be accom-

stitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the creation of Sistem plished without the good cooperation from all working levels of the Sec-

Manajemen Perkara (Case Management System) with Information Tech- retariat General and Registrar Office and guidance and directions

nology basis, up to the perfection of supreme service providing to the from the Principals and Constitutional Justices. Therefore, it is appropri-

public. The performance of the Registrar Office in the year 2006 has ate and proper if the Registrar as the principal of the Registrar Office

quite improved even though it must be admitted that there are shortcom- gives the biggest gratitude and appreciation to the Principals, Constitu-

ings. All of those successes are not apart from the guidance and direc- tional Justices, Secretary General, all working levels of the Registrar

tion from the Principals and the Constitutional Justices and good coop- Office, and various co-workers who have supported the Constitutional

eration from all working levels of the Secretariat General and Registrar Court of the Republic of Indonesia all this time, along with a prayer that

Office, moreover the support from stakeholder of the Constitutional Court it all becomes good deed for the respective parties.

of the Republic of Indonesia who have jointly strived to place the Con- We are aware that there are a lot of shortcomings occurred in the

stitutional Court as modern and trustworthy judiciary institution among providing of justice administrative service and support in the framework

the community. of performing judiciary tasks, especially to the Constitutional Justices

Throughout the year 2006, the Constitutional Court of the Repub- and the public in general. Therefore, sincerely we ask for the broadest

lic of Indonesia has received 31 petitions consisting of 27 cases of ma- forgiveness, so that all of such shortcomings will become introspection

terial review (pengujian undang-undang/PUU) and 4 cases of Dis- and evaluation material for us in performing better justice administrative

pute over the Authorities of State Institutions (Sengketa Kewenangan tasks in the years to come.

Lembaga Negara/SKLN). In addition, there are the remaining 9 cases of Jakarta, December 31, 2006

Material Review (PUU) and 1 case of Dispute over the Authorities of

State Institutions (SKLN) from the year 2005. Therefore, the total cases
examined in the year 2006 are 41 cases with total cases of Material Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi

Annual Report 2006 61

General and Justice Administration Support
T
he Secretariat General and Registrar Office of the Constitutional
Court are organizations having the tasks of providing administrative sup-
port to the constitutional justices. This is in accordance with the provi-
sion in Article 7 of Law Number 24 of the Year 2003 regarding the Con-
stitutional Court which states: “For the effectiveness in the implementa-
tion of its tasks and authorities, the Constitutional Court is assisted by a
Secretariat General and the Registrar Office.”
As tasks and authorities supporting organizations to the Constitu-
tional Court, the Secretariat General and Registrar Office formulate regu-
lar working program in working meeting convened at the end of the year
to be implemented in the subsequent year. The formulation and imple-
mentation of the working program is the effort to operate the vision and
mission as well as blue print of the Constitutional Court. By implement-
ing working program which is formulated regularly, in addition to effec-
tively implement the tasks and authorities of the Constitutional Court,
the Secretariat General and Registrar Office are also expected to be
able to realize the ideal of the Constitutional Court as a modern and
trustworthy judiciary authority implementing institution in a gradual man-
ner.
As organizations having the task of providing administrative sup-
port, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office also provide opti-
mal services to the public starting from the dissemination of information
regarding the Constitutional Court up to the court proceeding process in
Announcement intended to support the Constitutional
Court as a clean Court in the lobby of the Court building.
Photo: Denny
62
the Constitutional Court. The services of Secretariat General and the
Registrar Office to the public put forward promptness, accuracy, and
simplicity. This is proven by the promptness of bureaucracy, the provid-
ing of information and advices for those who have not yet qualified, and
no charges upon the petitioners.
For anyone intends to file a petition to the Constitutional Court,
besides delivering his/her petition directly to the Constitutional Court,
he/she can also register his/her petition through internet facility. The
service of registration through internet is because the Constitutional Court
accommodates sophisticated technology which can assist human works
to be faster and simpler.
With simple court proceeding process which is supported by mod-
ern system, it is expected that public trust to the Constitutional Court
from time to time will increase. Indication of public trust level to the Con-
stitutional Court can be observed from the total number of petitions re-
ceived. Public trust to the Constitutional Court sometimes even mixes
with disproportionate expectation. Many petitioners submitted cases
which are actually outside of the authorities of the Constitutional Court,
such as constitutional complaint. It is regretted that those complaints
cannot be followed up since they are outside of the authorities of the
Constitutional Court.
Materializing Modern Judiciary Institu-
tion
Approaching the mid-term of proclaimed service stage (2006-2007),
the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office of the Constitutional
Court always strive for creating supreme and professional service in the
form of friendly, open, and modern service to the stake holder, espe-
cially community members. Various efforts have been conducted to ac-
commodate modernization with the objecting of improving efficiency,
effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of services of the Con-
stitutional Court. One of the efforts is the utilization of efficient informa-
tion and communication technology.
The advancement of information and communication technology
or which often referred to as Information Communication Technology
(ICT) in its climax will change the paradigm of interaction pattern and
the management method of communication and administration process
in an institution. ICT can assist institution in creating work efficiency,
Annual Report 2006

Facility of online case registration system through Constitutional Court website.
ease the bureaucracy, change work culture, improve public social life,
improve service quality, and the most important of all is that it can en-
courage the core business of the institution. Therefore, ICT can be used
as instrument for the course of institutional wheel to create good gov-
ernance.
The awareness over the importance of ICT in government institu-
tion has encouraged the government to issue Presidential Instruction
No. 3 of the Year 2003 regarding the National Policy and Strategy in the
Development of e-government.
E-government is the utilization of ICT as a means with the objec-
tive to improve efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and accountabil-
ity of government services. The application of ICT in government institu-
tion can provide strategic benefits such as supporting the efficiency of
government internal work; improving service quality for public in order
to comply with the agenda for the improvement of public life standard;
expedite responses and policy making; ease access towards required
information; simplify the process; and minimize operational cost.
The concept of e-Government eventually will demand several para-
digm changes, such as office automation, decentralized processing,
service oriented processing, knowledge based society and think globally
act locally. The application of e-government means the transition of gov-
ernment wheel organizing process from manual into automatic in all in-
ter-connected sectors, highly distributed management, and service-based
management, as well as efficient and effective information-based policy
making.
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
Realizing such matter, the Constitutional Court carrying the mis-
sion as one of the executors of modern and trustworthy judiciary author-
ity has strived to cooperate with Statistic Center Agency (Badan Pusat
Statistik/BPS), a government institution which has earned the trust of
public in the application of ICT, with its success in earning e-Govern-
ment Award. With this cooperation, it is expected that ICT in the Consti-
tutional Court can be achieved, and development of e-government can
reach the expected objectives.
Whereas the cooperation which have been endeavored are among
others solution for the development of ICT information and technology
system which covers the designing of ICT platform such as infrastruc-
ture (networking) and efficient software, the providing of institution-based
service, application and content for the management of core business of
the Constitutional Court. Related to such matter, will also be endeavored
open source-based solution, as an effort to minimize the cost both dur-
ing the development and operational process without decreasing the
quality of application.
Therefore, it is expected that ICT system of the Constitutional Court
can periodically be continuously developed to become the latest infor-
mation system application. Indeed, these changes will require
socialization process; therefore, the utilization of the provided facility in
it can become effective to be used in the environs of the Constitutional
Court, and to be understood by its stakeholders, especially by the pub-
lic. Hence, efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of
services of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia to the
public can be assured.
Application of information system of the Constitutional Court as
the implementation of e-government is consisting of several modules.
Among others, Case Management System (CMS) module which is an
internal menu and online case menu; employee affairs information sys-
tem module; electronic disposition information system module; library
information system module; statutory regulation documentation system
module; planning and expenditure information system module; and con-
tent management system module.
Related to such matter, from the beginning of the existence of the
Constitutional Court, the utilization of website
www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id has been used as a part of transpar-
ency with regard to court proceeding and activities of the Constitutional
63
General and Justice Administration Support

Court. Public can easily and economically obtain various information

regarding case being trialed at the Constitutional Court, the minutes of
court proceeding, decisions of the Constitutional Court, question and
answer regarding constitution, and news concerning with the court pro-
ceeding and other activities performed by the Constitutional Court, also
including the procurement of goods and services in the environs of the
Constitutional Court.
At the present time, the website of Constitutional Court has had
bandwidth of 256 KB. That bandwidth is planned to be increased to be-
come 512 KB-1MB in the year 2007. This is because the bandwidth will
also be used for telephony and teleconference.
On August 11, 2006, the Constitutional Court has also penetrated
the conservatism of procedural law for court proceeding in Indonesia by law against the 1945 Constitution.
launching Case Management Systems for petition of material review over Basically, the application of case management information sys-
law against the 1945 Constitution by means of online registration (through tem (sistem informasi manajemen perkara/SIMEKAR) proclaimed by the
website). At any time, in any where, in any moment, any party consider- Constitutional Court is a work flow-based application with client server
ing that his/her constitutional rights or authorities have been impaired technology, which enable the public to submit case petition by online
by the application of law can submit petition for material review over the and offline manner, and to be acquainted with the development of case
deciding process through the website. This can be done because web
Procedure for Online Submission
in the Constitutional Court server is connected to document access service, there-
fore, it will ease the publication of document.

After the material review of a law against the 1945

Petitioner registers petition through the website of the
Constitutional Court (www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id)
by inputting data in the Petition Form
Follow up by the Petitioner by complying with the re-
quirements as stipulated by Article 29 and Article 31 of
Law No. 24 of the Year 2003 regarding the Constitu-
tional Court; and
Towards a petition which is not followed up, the Con-
stitutional Court will delete the petition from the list of
petitions.
Evidence of registration of petition as meant in
point (1) is the petition submission requirement
sheet at the Constitutional Court of the Republic
of Indonesia
Petition which has been registered
through the website of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Indonesia
(www.mahkamahkonsitusi.go.id) must be
followed up by the Petitioner at the lat-
est three days after the publication in the
website of the Constitutional Court
Constitution, then, all types of cases will be handled by
SIMEKAR (Case Management Information System).
Those cases are among others: disputes over the au-
thorities of state institutions whose authorities are
granted by the 1945 Constitution; the dissolution of po-
litical parties; disputes regarding the result of general
election; or opinion of the House of People’s Representa-
tives that the President and/or the Vice President are
alleged to have committed lawful misconduct in the form
of treason against the country, corruption, bribery, other
severe criminal acts, or indecent acts, and/or no longer
qualified as the President and/or the Vice President as
meant in the 1945 Constitution.
In addition to the website, modernization conducted
in relation to the organizing of infrastructure in the new

64 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

building of the Constitutional Court which is planned to be immediately proceeding with court proceeding chamber in it having the characteris-
used in the mid 2007. It is conducted to complete and support the daily tics of Indonesian archipelago culture.
tasks of the Constitutional Court. Specifically, the presence of cultural art in the Constitutional Court
The development of new building of the Constitutional Court hav- building is an effort to give cross-civilization artistic touch; develop im-
ing address in Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat No. 6, Jakarta, is based on age; develop and improve aesthetic taste or experience of the observer;
the non availability of building for the office of the Constitutional Court and create cultural atmosphere and understanding. The adoption of
in performing its tasks. Up till now, the Constitutional Court uses the theme of “Indonesian archipelago cultural insight” can be seen from the
former building of the department of information (Jalan Medan Merdeka design of each room organized in a balance and integrated room lay out
No. 7, Jakarta) which is not representative to organize the tasks and in the performance of the Constitutional Court building. In other words,
authorities of the Constitutional Court as constitution judiciary institu- modernity can put side by side with cultural aesthetic nuances.
tion.
In the front yard of the building will not be built a permanent fence,
it will be sufficient with plant fence in order that it will have environmen-
tal concept in accordance with the Regional Regulation of the Special
Region of the Capital City of Jakarta. This is also for the aesthetic value,
therefore, the harmonious beauty, green atmosphere can add up to com-
fort of the visitors.
The new building of the Constitutional Court is intended not only
as the office of the Constitutional Court, but also will become the law
study center, especially state administrative law. As study center, it will
become law and state administrative information center equipped with
the most complete law and state administrative modern library facility in
Asia. In addition, the building will provide facility in the form of room for
public institutions in dispute and the reporters, both printed and elec-
tronic.
In 2006, in the framework of constructing this 17-story building,
has also been started the implementation of architectural work, interior
design, a portion of mechanical work, building IT network, landscape,
and procurement of furniture. In the mid 2007, the work will be com-
pleted.
In addition to the intensification of building infrastructure moderni-
zation, the image sense value must also be seriously considered. The
architectural design conception will be directed to the image projection
of a building reflecting the pillars of judge independence as the guard-
ian of open and friendly constitution. The visualization of nine pillars (in
accordance with the total number of constitutional justices) depicts the
independence of constitutional justices in performing their tasks. The
front building will be equipped with large dome representing open court Publication of Constitutional Court decision in national mass media.

Annual Report 2006 65

MATERIALIZING TRUSTWORTHY JUDICIARY INSTITUTION
General and Justice Administration Support
Materializing Trustworthy
Judiciary Institution
As one of the executors of judiciary authorities, the Constitutional
Court since the beginning has determined to become the trustworthy
constitutional judiciary institution. It cannot be set apart from the posi-
tion of the Constitutional Court as state institution in which its perform-
ance is quite determining for the development of public life at large.
Therefore, the Secretariat General and Registrar Office of the Constitu-
tional Court have performed steps aiming at the achievement of those
ideals, among others by delivering report both to the general public and
related institutions and by improving services and professionalism of
the employees.
Photo: Mardian W.
Books on Law and Constitution published by the Constitutional Court.
Delivery of Report
The Secretariat General and the Registrar Office intensively pro-
vide report to public both concerning the performance related to the au-
thorities of constitutional justices and the performance of employees.
Each time the Constitutional Court issues a decision, the Secretariat
General and the Registrar Office disseminate the text of such decision
in the form of advertisement in six daily newspapers which are Koran
66
Tempo, Republika, Media Indonesia, Seputar Indonesia, Rakyat
Merdeka, and Suara Karya and two magazines which are Legislatif and
Trust. In addition to being disseminated by means of public mass me-
dia, the decisions of the Constitutional Court are also published in the
Constitutional Court internal media and disseminated in the form of books.
Moreover, in order to fulfill the public curiosity to the Constitutional
Court, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office have developed
website with the address www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id, published a
magazine with the name of Konstitusi and journal with the name of
Konstitusi which are published once every two months, and published
bilingual annual report (Indonesian and English languages). The website
of the Constitutional Court and magazine titling Konstitusi serve up news
regarding the development of cases and activities conducted by the
Constitutional Court. Whereas journal titling Konstitusi contains ideas
of the intellectuals regarding constitution and state administrative as well
Hearing between the Secretariat General and Registry of the Constitutional Court and
Commission III of the House of Representatives.
as their point of view regarding the decisions of the Constitutional Court.
Meanwhile, the annual report contains various activities which have been
conducted during one year relating to the authorities of the Constitu-
tional Court and the work program of the Secretariat General and the
Registrar Office. In the framework of delivering report to public at large
as well, at the end of the year 2006, the Secretariat General and the
Registrar Office facilitate the press conference for nine constitutional
Annual Report 2006

justices with regard to the implementation of authorities of the Constitu-
tional Court during the year 2006.
The Secretariat General and the Registrar Office also deliver re-
port to related institutions such as the Department of State Apparatus
Empowerment and the House of People’s Representatives. The report
to the Department of State Apparatus Empowerment is prepared in the
form of Government Institution Performance Accountability Report
(Laporan Akuntabilias Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah/LAKIP) which is de-
livered at the beginning of each year. The preparation of Government
Institution Performance Accountability Report (LAKIP) is based on the
employee performance report composed once every three months
through the respective bureaus and centers in the environs of the Sec-
retariat General and the Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court.
Whereas, report to the House of People’s Representatives is conducted
in a Hearing (Rapat Dengar Pendapat/RDP) between the Secretariat
General and the Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court and the
House of People’s Representatives. In the Hearing (RDP) is being con-
veyed various information regarding Secretariat General and Registrar
Office of the Constitutional Court in details, among others, regarding
the activities, organizational development strategy, internal control, and
services to public. During the year 2006, the Secretariat General and
the Registrar Office have convened Hearing for three times.
In addition to delivering report, the Secretariat General and the
Registrar Office are also investigated by the Finance and Development
Supervisory Agency (Badan Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan/
BPKP) and the Finance Investigator Agency (Badan Pemeriksa
Keuangan/BPK) every year. The investigation result of those two insti-
tutions does not find any misuse of state finance utilization by the Sec-
retariat General and the Registrar Office.
Service and Professionalism
The Secretariat General and the Registrar Office always strive for
providing supreme service to the public. As supporting organizations for
the implementation of the authorities of the Constitutional Court, the
Secretariat General and the Registrar Office always put forward the need
of community in fulfilling their constitutional needs and rights. Through
good services, it is expected that the public who wish to file a case re-
garding violation of their constitutional rights will not find any difficul-
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
ties.
The improvement of service in the Secretariat General and Regis-
trar Office covers the dimension of the service itself and the institutional
dimension. Service dimension covers several principal matters which
must be fulfilled in providing services such as information, consultancy,
order taking, hospitality, caretaking, exception, billing and payment.
Whereas institutional dimension is the supporter in order that the
service can be done optimally. Institutionally, the Secretariat General
and the Registrar Office always make organizational improvement which
covers work procedure and the creation of good organizational culture.
In order to fulfill the expectation, the professionalism of human resources
becomes a very determining factor.
So far, the employees of the Secretariat General and the Registrar
Office of the Constitutional Court from the aspect of educational level at
the average have quite adequate competence. This can be observed
Photo: Denny
Education and Training on Filing for the Employees of the Secretary General and Regis-
try of the Constitutional Court.
from the education background which they posses. Based on the data
up to December 2006, employees having bachelor degree are 110 per-
sons, master degree totaling to 21 persons, doctoral degree totaling to 5
persons, diploma 2 and diploma 3 totaling to 19 persons, Senior High
School totaling to 64 persons, Junior High School totaling to 3 persons
and Elementary School totaling to 2 persons.
In accordance with the provisions issued by the Department of State
Apparatus Empowerment, the Secretariat General and the Registrar
67
General and Justice Administration Support
Office have minimized honorarium-based employees and make
provisioning of Candidates for Civilian Government Employees (Calon
Pegawai Negeri Sipil/CPNS). For such activity, the Secretariat General
and the Registrar Office have conducted selection and recruitment of
employees, placement test and assessment test, orientation for Candi-
dates for Civilian Government Employee (CPNS), and coordination meet-
ing on employee affairs management fostering. Up to the end of the
year 2006, the employees of the Secretariat General and the Registrar
Office of the Constitutional Court having the status as Civilian Govern-
ment Employees (PNS) are 61 persons, Candidates for Civilian Govern-
ment Employees (CPNS) are 90 persons, honorarium-based staff are 5
persons, expert staff are 7 persons, administrator are 5 persons, non
institution assisting staff are 11 persons, non institution doctors are 2
persons, non institution assisting staff (drivers) are 18 persons, assist-
ing staff of the Police Department of the Republic of Indonesia are 18
persons, non permanent researchers are 3 persons.
Other effort conducted by the Secretariat General and the Regis-
trar Office in improving the professionalism of their employees are by
convening various educational and training programs. During the year
2006, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office have convened
various educations and trainings for the employees of the Constitutional
Court, among others, Training and Education Program for the Princi-
pals; English Courses; Training and Education Program on the Procure-
Petitioners register their cases
68
Justice Deliberation Meeting Room.
ment of Goods and Services; Training and Education Program for Treas-
urers; Training and Education Program for State Administrative Affairs
and Archival Matters; Training and Education Program of Case Admin-
istration; Training and Education Program for Substitute Registrars;
Course on Photography and Audiovisual; Training and Education Pro-
gram on Internal Supervisory System; Training and Education Program
on Library Matters; Training and Education for Pre-Official Position; Train-
ing and Education Program on Government Institution Accountability
System; Training on Indonesian Language; Training and Education Pro-
gram on Official Position and Competence Standard for the Office of
Civilian Government Employees; Training and Education Program on
the Planning and Development of Employees; Training and Education
Program on Secretarial Affairs; Training and Education Program on Reg-
istrar Affairs; Training and Education Program on Information and Com-
munication Technology-Based Archive Management; and Training and
Education Program on the Appreciation and Training of Service Unit Text
Lay Out and Archival Matters.
In addition, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office have
also convened title path by sending into school their employees to higher
level education. In the year 2006, there are 23 persons having Bachelor
Degree who have continued their education to Master Degree. As well
for those having capability in certain sectors, such as English Language,
the Secretariat General and Registrar Office provide opportunity to de-
velop their capability by enrolling them in courses abroad. All of those
Annual Report 2006

are the form of concern from the Secretariat General and Registrar Of-
fice towards the improvement of professionalism of their employees.
Professionalism of employees of the Secretariat General and Reg-
istrar Office is not only conditioned by the improvement of work capabil-
ity, but also formed by work discipline. One of the disciplinary instru-
ments for the employees of the Secretariat General and the Registrar
Office is the application of attendance system by means of hand punch
to ease the employees to mark their attendance. Starting from Civilian
Government Employees up to non Civilian Government Employees are
also obliged to login to distinguish their attendance. Attendance of em-
ployees is one of the performance parameter for employees in addition
to the realization of work program of the respective bureaus and centers
in the environs of the Secretariat General and Registrar Office of the
Constitutional Court.
Case Service Process
In broad line, the implementation of case service in the Constitu-
tional Court is started from the acceptance of case followed by the sched-
uling for court proceeding session. When the petition is registered at the
Registrar Office, the Case Administration Bureau receives case and
records it in the Case File Acceptance Book (Buku Penerimaan Berkas
Perkara/BPBP).
If the case file is already complete, the petition will immediately be
registered in the Constitutional Case Registration Book (Buku Registrasi
Perkara Konstitusi/BRPK), by providing it with case number, date and
hour of receipt. After that will be issued Case Registration Deed and it
will be given to the petitioner. Official copy of the petition which has
been registered will be forwarded to certain parties in accordance with
the law within seven days based on the type of case.
Whereas, if the petition is not yet complete, will be provided an
opportunity for the petition to complete it within at the latest seven work-
ing days as of the receipt of deed of notice. If within the deadline, the
petitioner did not complete it, and then will be issued Deed of Non Reg-
istration of Petition as evidence that the case cannot be registered in
the Constitutional Case Registration Book (BRPK). The total number of
cases being processed by the Constitutional Court in the year 2006 is
31 cases.
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
Petition files which have been entered into and registered in the
Constitutional Case Registration Book (BRPK) afterward will be forwarded
to the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the stipulation of the
composition of the Panel of Justices who will examine the case. Then,
the Constitutional Justices will immediately examine the petition in pub-
licly open court proceeding session.
Whereas the court proceeding stages in the procedural law of the
Constitutional Court is started by the preliminary examination, followed
by court proceeding examination and Justices Consultative Meeting
(Rapat Permusyawaratan Hakim/RPH), and ended by court session for
Photo: Denny
Constitutional Court Registrar, Drs. H. Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, S.H., M.Hum gives copies of
decision to the petitioners
the reciting of decision. In the year 2006, the constitutional justices have
convened Justices Consultative Meeting activities for 261 times.
All of those are prepared by Court Proceeding Service Section to-
gether with the substitute registrar and summoning officer. In every stage
will not always the same the total number of activities and the period of
activities, depending of the necessity and considerations of the panel of
constitutional justices in revealing various required information, save
for in the stage of court session for the reciting of decision which is only
conducted in one court session. However, the total number court pro-
ceeding will remain observe the principle of prompt judiciary implemen-
tation. In the first court session will be conducted Preliminary Examina-
tion which will be conducted in Panel Court Proceeding which at least
will consist of three Constitutional Justices. The objective of this pre-
69
General and Justice Administration Support
liminary court session is to examine the completeness and clarity of sub-
ject matter of the petition which covers the authorities of the Constitu-
tional Court, legal standing of the petitioner, and the substance of the
petition.
If the Panel of Justices is of the opinion that the petition is not yet
complete or not clear, the Panel of Justices will give advice to the peti-
tioner or his/her attorney to correct his/her petition within a period of at
the latest 14 days. If the petition has been corrected and the Panel of
Justices is of the opinion that the petition has been completed and clear,
the court proceeding will be continued by Court Proceeding Examina-
tion.
Court Proceeding Examination is conducted in a Plenary Court
Proceeding which is attended by at least seven Constitutional Justices.
In this court proceeding stage, the Panel of Justices will reveal the infor-
mation as complete as possible from the petitioner or related parties,
from the community members, government officials and state officials in
the framework of examination over the substance of the case and ex-
amination towards the evidences submitted by the parties in the court
proceeding.
In the evidencing process at the Constitutional Court, based on
Article 36 paragraph (1) letter f of the Constitutional Court Law, informa-
tion being stated, sent, received or maintained electronically by means
of optical devices or the like may become lawful evidences according to
the Law. With regard to how many times and/or how long this examina-
tion stage will persist, will very much depend on the complexity of the
petition, the readiness of the petitioner, and the certainty of adequacy of
70
Dissemination of Information between the Constitutional Court and Regional Police Of-
fice of Central Kalimantan
information which has been obtained from the court proceeding.
After the information regarding petition through examination court
proceeding is considered sufficient, the Panel of Justices will immedi-
ately adopt a decision towards the petition. The discussion and adop-
tion of decision are conducted in a privately held and publicly closed
Justices Consultative Meeting (RPH). The quorum of the Justices Con-
sultative Meeting (RPH) to adopt a decision is at least seven Constitu-
tional Justices, assisted by Registrar, and other sworn officers. In the
consultative meeting, the Registrar Office will note and record every
essence of the discussion and conclusion, and accompany the Consti-
tutional Justices in drafting the decision. After the draft of decision is
finished, will be conducted editing in the framework of finalizing the de-
cision.
Simultaneously with the finalization of decision, the registrar of-
fice plans the schedule for court session for reciting of decision. In the
court session for the reciting of decision, the Substitute Registrar ac-
companies the Constitutional Justice and records matters pertaining to
the affairs in the court proceeding, and based on such records will be
composed the minutes of court proceeding. In this stage of court pro-
ceeding, after the reciting of Decision, to the Petitioner and other re-
lated parties at that time will be provided with the official copies in ac-
cordance with the decision which has been recited in the court proceed-
ing. During the year 2006, the Constitutional Court has convened court
session for 128 times.
Annual Report 2006

Books written by Constitutional Justices.
Developing Constitutional Awareness Culture
Constitution belongs to everyone. Therefore, no matter who, politi-
cians, academics, economic agents, labor community, traditional com-
munity, even the poor and abandoned children, are entitled to and must
understand the content of the common life consensus formed and pre-
vail in the framework of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia
which all of them are stipulated in our constitution: the 1945 Constitu-
tion. Without the establishment of this mutual understanding, certainly
the noble ideals to materialize independent, united, sovereign, just and
prosperous state cannot be implemented since there will not yet be a
comprehensive understanding on what should become the background
of our aspiration in forming Indonesian nation based on constitutional
democracy system.
Therefore, it becomes our collective obligation as fellow citizen to
intertwine and develop constitutional awareness culture. As the guard
and sole interpreter of the constitution and as a part of the state author-
ity pillars, surely the Constitutional Court is also obliged to bear the re-
sponsibility to create this awareness.
Various efforts have been conducted by the Constitutional Court
in the framework of developing constitutional awareness culture. First,
the Constitutional Court has repeatedly convened Discussion activities
held in Jakarta and various regions in Indonesia through cooperation
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
with the regional governments, academic communities of local universi-
ties, even with informal educational institutions such as pesantren (Is-
lamic boarding school).
It is registered that in this Year 2006, the Constitutional Court has
convened 33 Discussions which were held in Jakarta and various cities,
regencies, or provinces in Indonesia, among others, such as, all Prov-
inces in Java, West Sumatra, North Sumatra, Bali, North Mollucas, North
Celebes, South Celebes, and Jambi. In several occasions in this series
of discussion agenda to the regions, the Constitutional Justices also give
general lecture regarding Indonesian constitution and state administra-
tion in the local universities.
Second, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office of the
Constitutional Court have published various law books and constitutional
books written by the Constitutional Justices either individually or collec-
tively with other writers and also published the results of the decisions of
the Constitutional Court. In addition, for education and information proc-
ess, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office, among others,
publish book on Pendidikan Kesadaran Berkonstitusi (Education for Con-
stitutional Awareness) for elementary school students, junior high school
students and senior high school students, publish book on the 1945 Con-
stitution in various languages, among others, Jawa Ngoko and Kromo
Inggil languages, Balinese language, and Sundanese language; publish
the 1945 Constitution in Arab Pegon letter and Braille letter; publish
magazine titling Konstitusi containing various developments of court pro-
ceeding activities and non court proceeding activities in the Constitu-
tional Court, and publish journal titling Konstitusi containing a variety of
thoughts and ideas regarding the law and the constitution and other state
administrative matters.
Several important books published by the Secretariat General and
the Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court which discuss law and
constitutional issues, among others, are:
1. Mengenal Mahkamah Konstitusi (Tanya Jawab tentang MK di Dunia
Maya) [Getting to Know the Constitutional Court (Question and An-
swer regarding Constitutional Court in Virtual World], written by
Taufiqurrahman Syahuri;
2. Teori Hans Kelsen tentang Hukum [The Theory of Hans Kelsen re-
garding Law], written by Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H. and M. Ali
71
General and Justice Administration Support

Safa’at, S.H., M.H.;

3. Kemerdekaan Berserikat, Pembubaran Partai Politik dan Mahkamah
Konstitusi [Independence to Make Union, Dissolution of Political
Party and the Constitutional Court], written by Prof. Dr. Jimly
Asshiddiqie, S.H.;
4. Hukum Acara Pengujian Undang-Undang [Procedural Law for Ma-
terial Review], written by Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H.;
5. Hukum Konstitusi dan Mahkamah Konstitusi [Constitutional Law and
the Constitutional Court], written by
6. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Tata Negara Jilid 1 dan 2 [Introduction to
State Administrative Law Science, Volumes 1 and 2], written by
Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H.;
7. Sengketa Kewenangan Antarlembaga Negara [Dispute over the Media Visit of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court to the Press Council

Authorities among State Institutions], written by Prof. Dr. Jimly

Asshiddiqie, S.H.; 11. Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Tanya Jawab [Constitutional Court in

8. Peradilan Konstitusi di Sepuluh Negara [Constitutional Judiciary in Question and Answer], written by the Lieutenant General of the In-

Ten States], written by Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H.; donesian National Army (Retired) Roestandi, S.H.;

9. Hukum Tata Negara dan Pilar-pilar Demokrasi [State Administra- 12. Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai Pengawal Demokrasi [Constitutional

tive Law and the Pillars of Democracy], written by Prof. Dr. Jimly Court as the Guardian of Democracy], written by Soedarsono, S.H.;

Asshiddiqie, S.H.; 13. Berjalan-jalan di Ranah Hukum [Walking in the Domain of Law],

10. Model-model Pengujian Konstitusional di Berbagai Negara [Con- written by Prof. Dr. Laica Marzuki, S.H;

stitutional Assessment Models in Various Countries], written by Prof. 14. Sistem Peraturan Perundang-undangan di Indonesia [Statutory

Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H.; Regulations System in Indonesia], written by Prof. Ahmad
Syarifuddin Natabaya, S.H., LLM;
15. Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia [Procedural
Law of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia], writ-
ten by Maruarar Siahaan, S.H.;
16. Pendidikan Kesadaran Berkonstitusi untuk SD/MI kelas 1-3 [Edu-
cation for Constitutional Awareness for Elementary School/Islamic
Elementary School grade 1 – 3];
17. Pendidikan Kesadaran Berkonstitusi untuk SD/MI kelas 4-6 [Edu-
cation for Constitutional Awareness for Elementary School/Islamic
Elementary School grade 4 – 6];
18. Pendidikan Kesadaran Berkonstitusi untuk SMP/MTs [Education for
Constitutional Awareness for Junior High School/Islamic Junior High
School];
19. Pendidikan Kesadaran Berkonstitusi untuk SLTA dan sederajat
Coverage on Constitutional Court by various mass media [Education for Constitutional Awareness for Senior High School and

72 Annual Report 2006


Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court fills a radio program concerning Law and Consti-
tution on Indonesian State Radio.
the equivalent];
20. Gagasan Amandemen UUD 1945 dan Pemilihan Presiden Secara
Langsung [Ideas on the Amendment to the 1945 Constitution and
the Direct Presidential Election], written by Prof. Dr. Jimly
Asshiddiqie, S.H. and Co.
Third, the Constitutional Court establishes cooperation with vari-
ous universities to form Constitutional Review Center which will be very
useful for the development of science and information relating to the
constitution and state administration. Up to the present time, the Secre-
Puppet-shadow show also becomes a medium for the dissemination of information
on the Constitutional Court.
Annual Report 2006
The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia
tariat General and the Registrar Office of the Constitu-
tional Court have established cooperation with 28 univer-
sities. For the year 2006, the Secretariat General and the
Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court have cooper-
ated with five universities. Those five universities are Con-
stitutional Review Center of the Law Faculty of Universi-
tas Islam Sultan Agung Semarang (UNISSULA), Consti-
tutional Review Center of the Law Faculty of Hukum Uni-
versitas Islam Nusantara Bandung (UNINUS), Constitu-
tional Review Center of Universitas Islam Malang
(UNISMA), and Post Graduate Program of Science of the
Law Faculty of Universitas Islam Indonesia and Universi-
tas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI).
Cooperation established with the signatories of that memorandum
of understanding is intended to realize a series of research and review
activities and seminars regarding constitution and state administration
which become a part of the effort to develop constitutional awareness.
Photo: Denny
China ambassador’s visit to the Constitutional Court
Moreover, the Constitutional Court also opens itself to receive submis-
sion of research proposal from universities which have not yet establish
cooperation.
In the year 2006, the Constitutional Court in cooperation with vari-
ous universities in Indonesia convened a series of researches as men-
73
General and Justice Administration Support
tioned below.
1. Position and Authority of Nagari in State Administrative System
Related to Article 51 of Law Number 24 of the Year 2003 regarding
the Constitutional Court
2. Analysis on the Normative Implication of Decision of the Constitu-
tional Court by Justices Interpretation Method in Deciding Case.
3. Dissolution of Political Party [A Review regarding the Authority of
Constitutional Court to Decide the Dissolution of Political Party
Based on Article 24C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution].
4. Dispute over the Authority of State Finance Management Investi-
gation between the Finance Investigator Agency and Finance and
Development Supervisory Agency Based on the 1945 Constitution.
5. Legal Standing of Autonomous Region in the Right to File Lawsuit
with regard to Dispute among institutions to the Constitutional Court.
6. National Social Security System Model Based on Article 34 of the
1945 Constitution.
7. Implementation of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Indonesia for Case Number 011/PUU-III/2005 regard-
ing Material Review of Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 20
of the Year 2003 regarding National Education System against the
1945 Constitution at the former Besuki Residency (Administrative
Unit of the Colonial Period).
In addition to the universities, the Constitutional Court also estab-
lishes cooperation with other government institutions in order to expe-
dite the effort for the developing of constitutional awareness culture.
During the year 2006, the Constitutional Court has also established co-
operation which is bound by a memorandum of understanding with four
government institutions. Those government institutions
are the Department of National Education, the Depart-
ment of Law and Human Rights, Bank Indonesia (BI),
and the Government of East Java Province.
Fourth, the Constitutional Court also strives for
developing public constitutional awareness through the
printed and electronic mass media. Various news cov-
erage regarding the Constitutional Court provides
meaningful contribution to the effort of developing con-
stitutional awareness. In order to facilitate such objec-
74
tive, the Constitutional Court provide Media Centre facilities for report-
ers in order to ease them in making news coverage over various activi-
ties of the Constitutional Court both justice activities and non justice
activities. In addition, in order to further assist the performance of the
reporters, the staff of Media Centre also perform several assisting ac-
tivities such as sending invitation for news coverage and press release
via facsimile, short message service (SMS) and by e-mail, in order to
ease the reporters in knowing the agenda and schedule of court pro-
ceeding and non court proceeding activities at the Constitutional Court.
The presence of news coverage regarding the Constitutional Court
in mass media, in addition to demonstrating the acknowledgement of
media world over the existence of the Constitutional Court, it also very
beneficial in assisting the mission of the Constitutional Court to develop
constitutional awareness. In order to know to what extent the issues of
the Constitutional Court which becomes the news coverage material in
mass media, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office conduct
media monitoring process towards the news in various printed and online
mass media (www.detik.com, www.hukumonline.com,
www.kompascybermedia.com, and www.suaramerdeka.com).
The result of the monitoring demonstrates that news regarding the
Constitutional Court in various mass media during the year 2006 has
reached 2271 news.
Other form of cooperation with mass media is by conducting me-
dia visit aiming at introducing Constitutional Court State Institution, es-
tablishing cooperation, and providing understanding regarding judiciary
institutions in Indonesia. Media visit in the year 2006 was conducted by
visiting printed media, radio and television. In September 2006, the Chief
Constitutional Court Library
Photo: Luthfi WE
Annual Report 2006
 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia con- governments and embassy of ally countries such as Cambodia, China,
ducted two media visit, among others, to the office of SCTV in Jl. Gatot Venezuela, and Iran.
Subroto and Dewan Pers [Press Council], Jl. Kebon Sirih, Central Ja- Not merely a visit, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Of-
karta. These visits to mass media are not only conducted towards na- fice of the Constitutional Court also opens opportunity in the form of
tional media domiciled in Jakarta, but also towards local media located internship program for educational participants from various backgrounds
in the regions. Certainly, this is intended with the intention that the Con- of studies as a part of education process and dissemination of informa-
stitutional Court has a wider network with the media, therefore, various tion regarding the Constitutional Court.
information regarding Constitutional Court can be published both in na- Sixth, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office of the Con-
tional and local/regional mass media. stitutional Court also have library supporting facility which is not only
In addition to the above mentioned activities, the Secretariat Gen- useful for improving knowledge and know-how of the employees of the
eral and the Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court also cooperate Secretariat General and the Registrar Office and as the provider of ma-
with Radio Republik Indonesia (RRI) [Radio of the Republic of Indone- terials for the Constitutional Justices, but also the public is allowed to
sia] and Televisi Republik Indonesia (TVRI) [Television of the Republic make use of the available books in order to broaden knowledge regard-
of Indonesia] in broadcasting “Forum Konstitusi [Constitutional Forum]” ing constitution and other legal subject matters, including the enrich-
program to report the latest development regarding constitution and state ment of social, economic, politic, cultural, even religious discourse.
administration. By turns, the Constitutional Justices greet the audience Entirely, books available in the library of the Constitutional Court
throughout Indonesia every Tuesday at 17.00 up to 18.00 in programa 3 is totaling to 2,565 exemplars consisting of 1,984 titles. Based on the
of RRI. And also by turns, various resources are presented to television theme, books in the library can be classified as follows:
to discuss various topics regarding constitution. 1. Law In General, 130 titles;
The Secretariat General and the Registrar Office also make use of 2. International Law, 109 titles;
traditional media such as leather puppets and wooden puppets with sto- 3. State Administrative Law, 221 titles;
ries full of messages to develop constitutional awareness culture in the 4. Public Law, 57 titles;
community. In the year 2006, the Secretariat General and the Registrar 5. Social Law, 41 titles;
Office have also held two puppets stages performance. First, the leather 6. Criminal Law, 48 titles;
puppets performance in the framework of celebrating the anniversary of 7. Civil Law,110 titles;
the Constitutional Court with the puppeteer, Ki Purwadi Sabdo Carito, 8. Civil Procedural Law and Court, 95 titles;
was conducted on August 15, 2006. The performance was held in the 9. Law, Regulation, Case, 33 titles;
building of the Constitutional Court with hundreds of viewers consisting 10. Central Government Administration, 10 titles;
of the employees of the Constitutional Court and invitees. Second, the 11. Regional Government Administration, 28 titles;
wooden puppets performance with the puppeteer, Asep Sunarya, at LAP 12. Indonesian Central Government, 6 titles;
Bandung, was held on March 12, 2006. 13. Social Welfare, 10 titles;
Fifth, the Secretariat General and the Registrar Office of the Con- 14. Social Service, 13 titles;
stitutional Court are also receiving visits by various elements of the com- 15. Criminology, 56 titles;
munity who wish to further understand the performance of this institu- 16. High Education, 3 titles;
tion, among others, various universities in Indonesia and abroad, visits 17. Customs and Traditions, 1 title;
from the principals of state institutions such as the House of People’s 18. English Language, 9 titles;
Representatives and the Supreme Court, visits from international insti- 19. Pertaining to Literature, 21 titles;
tutions such as, the World Bank, public figures, as well as visits from 20. Biography, 159 titles;

Annual Report 2006 75

General and Justice Administration Support

21. Religion, 233 titles;

22. Psychology, 8 titles;
23. Dictionary and Encyclopedia, 70 titles;
24. Philosophy, 22 titles;
25. Social and Economic, 447 titles;
26. History, 32 titles;
27. Management, 12 titles.

Seventh, other form of effort by the Secretariat General and the

Registrar Office of the Constitutional Court in developing constitutional
awareness culture is by convening various external events which can
be participated by various community members. This moment is cel-
ebrated simultaneously with the celebration of anniversary of the Con-
stitutional Court which falls in August. In August 2006, the Secretariat
General and the Registrar Office convened various competitions involv-
ing the public at large, such as, scientific paper competition for college
students, lecturers, and reporters; journalistic photograph competition
with the theme Constitutional Court participated by photograph report-
ers; and quiz contest on the understanding over the 1945 Constitution
for blind students throughout the Special Region of the Capital City of
Jakarta, Bekasi, Banten, and West Java.

76 Annual Report 2006

 Mahkamah Konstitusi
Republik Indonesia

Financial Budgeting and Allocation

in the Year of 2006

Laporan Tahunan 2006 77

Financial Report

Sebagai salah satu wujud transparansi dan akuntabilitas yang

merupakan bagian dari prinsip tata kepemerintahan yang baik, Setjen
dan Kepaniteraan MK senantiasa terbuka dan bersedia untuk
menyampaikan informasi terkait dengan pelaksanaan tugas dan
wewenangnya kepada berbagai kalangan, baik lembaga penyelenggara
negara/pemerintahan maupun kelompok dan warga masyarakat.
Terkait dengan ini, Setjen dan Kepaniteraan MK menyusun Alokasi
Dan Realisasi Anggaran MK Tahun Anggaran (TA) 2006 sebagai bagian
dari laporan tahunan (annual report) yang rutin disusun setiap tahun.

A. ALOKASI ANGGARAN TA 2006:

Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan MK merupakan unsur
aparatur negara yang ditetapkan berdasarkan Keputusan Presiden No.
51 Tahun 2004 dan mempuyai tugas memberikan dukungan teknis ad-
ministratif umum maupun yustisial kepada MK. Kedudukan tersebut
memberikan peran yang sangat strategis bagi Sekretariat Jenderal dan
Kepaniteraan MK sebagaimana diamanatkan dalam UUD 1945 yang
dirinci lebih lanjut dalam UU No. 24 Tahun 2003 tentang MK.
Berdasarkan Dokumen Isian Pelaksanaan Anggaran (DIPA) atau
Rencana Kerja Anggaaran Kementerian Lembaga (RKA-KL) Nomor :
0001.0/077-01/-/2006 Tanggal 31 Desember 2005, Sekretariat Jenderal
dan Kepaniteraan MK telah mendapatkan alokasi dana dari APBN TA
2006 sebesar Rp 218.146.900.000,-. Sesuai dengan DIPA/RKA-KL MK
TA 2006 alokasi dana per program telah digunakan untuk. protokol, pembudayaan dan pemasyarakatan, seminar/ceramah,
1. Program Penyelenggaraan Pimpinan Kenegaraan dan sidang/konferensi, rapat kerja/dinas, perpustakaan, operasional
Kepemerintahan sebesar Rp 5.000.000.000,- persidangan dan kegiatan-kegiatan penunjang lainnya.
Memberikan dukungan pelayanan kepada Pimpinan dan Para 3. Program Peningkatan Kinerja Lembaga Peradilan dan
Hakim Konstitusi, berupa jamuan untuk delegasi/tamu, pengadaan Lembaga Penegakan Hukum Lainnya sebesar Rp
pakaian dinas, pemberian representasi/pelayanan/ pengawalan, 130.707.266.000,-:
asuransi kesehatan dan operasional pimpinan MK. Menyediakan sarana dan prasarana pendukung MK berupa
2. Program Peningkatan Pelayanan dan Bantuan Hukum sebesar penyediaan dana untuk pembiayaan lanjutan pembangunan
Rp 78.924.736.000,- gedung tahap III, disamping penyediaan dana untuk eskalasi harga
Memberikan dukungan pelayanan dalam rangka penyelenggaraan TA 2005 sesuai kebijakan pemerintah sebagaimana tercantum
tugas dan kewenangan MK, seperti belanja pegawai/honorarium/ dalam Peraturan Menteri Keuangan Nomor : 105/PMK.06/2005.
lembur, sarana penunjang (ATK/inventaris kantor), langganan daya 4. Program Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Hukum dan Hak Azasi
dan jasa, pemeliharaan, perjalanan dinas, pendidikan dan Manusia sebesar Rp 3.514.898.000,-:
pelatihan, pengembangan sistem informasi, penyusunan/ Menyediakan sarana dan prasarana pendukung MK berupa
penterjemahan buku, pencetakan, penyelenggaraan humas dan kegiatan penelitian dan pengembangan hukum bekerja sama

78 Laporan Tahunan 2006

 Mahkamah Konstitusi
Konstitusi
Republik Indonesia

dengan berbagai Perguruan Tinggi dan Lembaga Penelitian Lainnya.

Hasil kajian dan penelitian akan dipergunakan sebagai bahan/masukan
untuk para Hakim Konstitusi dalam melaksanakan tugas dan
kewenangannya.

Disamping itu sesuai Peraturan Menteri Keuangan Nomor : 99/

PMK.06/ 2005 Tanggal 19 Oktober 2005 Tentang Peluncuran Program/
Kegiatan Yang Dibiayai dari Sisa Anggaran Belanja Tahun Anggaran
2005 Sebagai Anggaran Belanja Tambahan Tahun Anggaran 2006 dan
DIPA Luncuran MK RI Nomor : 0001.0.1/077-01.0/-/2006 Tanggal 31
Desember 2005, MK telah menerima alokasi dana luncuran yang berasal
dari APBN TA 2005 sebesar Rp 19.692.482.000,- berupa sisa kontrak
pelaksanaan pembangunan Gedung MK RI baik untuk Manajemen
Konstruksi, Perencana maupun Pelaksana Konstruksi. Alokasi dana
luncuran tersebut sesuai peraturan Menteri Keuangan pencairan dananya
dibatasi hanya sampai dengan akhir bulan April 2006.

B. REALISASI ANGGARAN TA 2006 :

1. Dana Murni APBN Tahun Anggaran 2006:
Berdasarkan Data Biro Perencanaan dan Keuangan sampai dengan
tanggal 31 Desember 2006 dari jumlah alokasi MK yang berasal
dari dana murni APBN TA 2006 sebesar Rp. 218.146.900.000,-
telah direalisasikan sebesar Rp. 184.939.962.960,- atau sebesar
84,78% dengan rincian per program sebagaimana tersebut dalam
daftar dibawah ini.
Jumlah realisasi tersebut relatif dirasa sudah maksimal,
dikarenakan hal-hal sebagai berikut:
a. Terdapat jenis pengeluaran/kegiatan yang realisasinya
didasarkan atas kebutuhan, seperti pembayaran gaji/honorarium, b. Adanya kebijakan untuk mengurangi perjalanan dinas ke luar negeri
penerimaan tamu/delegasi, langganan daya dan jasa, dsb; dengan memprioritaskan undangan dan biaya perjalanan serta
penyelenggaraan ditanggung oleh pihak
NO PROGRAM JUMLAH REALISASI SISA %
1 2 3 4 5 (3-4) 6 (4:3) pengundang dari luar negeri;
Penyelenggaraan Pimpinan
1
Kenegaraan dan Kepemerintahan
5.000.000.000,- 3.567.577.200,- 1.432.422.800,- 71,35 c. Terdapat alokasi dana penghematan
Peningkatan Pelayanan dan
2 78.924.736.000,- 51.278.556.415,- 27.646.179.585,- 64,97
Bantuan Hukum sebesar Rp5.006.120.000,- sebagai tindak
Peningkatan Kinerja Lembaga
3 Peradilan dan Lembaga 130.707.266.000,- 129.334.774.495,- 1.372.491.505,- 98,95 lanjut surat Direktur Jenderal Anggaran dan
Penegakan Hukum Lainnya
Pembinaan dan Pengembangan Perimbangan Keuangan Nomor: S-1452/
4 3.514.898.000,- 759.054.850,- 2.755.843.150,- 21,60
Hukum dan Hak Azasi Manusia
AP/2006 Tanggal 29 Juni 2006.
Sub Jumlah 218.146.900.000,- 184.939.962.960,- 32.206.937.040,- 84,78
d. Terdapat sisa dana sebagai akibat tender/

Laporan Tahunan
Tahunan2006
2006 79
78
Financial Report
Diklat pengadaan barang dan jasa bagi pegawai di lingkungan MK.
pelelangan yang merupakan saving APBN, karena sasarannya
kegiatannya telah tercapai.
Kegiatan yang menonjol yang telah dilakukan MK pada TA 2006
antara lain:
a. Dalam rangka peningkatan SDM dan kemampuan teknis pegawai
telah mengirimkan pendidikan dan pelatihan (diklat) prajabatan dan
menyelenggarakan orientasi CPNS, mengirimkan pegawai
mengikuti diklat struktural/fungsional, menyelenggarakan diklat
kepaniteraan, kursus bahasa inggris/bahasa indonesia, diklat
administrasi perkara, kearsipan, penterjemah, diklat ketatausahaan
dan kearsipan, kesekretarisan, dan diklat teknis lainnya serta
mengirimkan pegawai mengikuti rintisan gelar baik di dalam
maupun luar negeri.
b. Dalam rangka peningkatan kompetensi dan peningkatan
pengawasan internal serta pengelolaan barang/kekeyaan milik
negara, bekerjasama dengan BPKP menyelenggarakan diklat
pengadaan barang dan jasa dan diklat pengawasan serta
Foto Launching Buku
melakukan pendampingan dibidang pengawasan internal maupun
pengelolaan terhadap Barang Milik Negara (SA BMN). Khusus
untuk pengelolaan SA BMN didampingi pula dari Ditjen
Perbendaharan.
c. Dalam rangka penyediaan sarana dan prasarana penunjang telah
melaksanakan pembangunan gedung MK dan pengadaan
meubelair gedung baru, sistem informasi, dsb. Pada saat ini proses
pembangunan gedung merupakan pembangunan tahap III dan
80
pada akhir TA 2006 telah dapat diselesaikan (89%). Penyelesaian
gedung akan dilakukan melalui APBN TA 2007 dan dperkirakan
pada hari ulang tahun ke-4 MK pada Tanggal 13 Agustus 2007
telah dapat digunakan.
d. Dalam rangka memberikan bahan masukan/pustaka kepada para
Hakim Konstitusi untuk memutus perkara dan meningkatkan
pegetahuan bekerja sama dengan Pusat Kajian Konstitusi di
beberapa Perguruan Tinggi Negeri/Swasta melakukan penelitian/
kajian hukum/konstitusi dan melakukan pengadaan buku-buku
perpustakaan yang diperlukan;
e. Dalam rangka transparansi dan akuntabilitas dan peningkatan
pelayanan kepada masyarakat serta mendukung upaya
pencegahan dan pemberantasan korupsi telah dilakukan langkah-
langkah seperti :
1) Penyusunan dan penyebarluasan prosedur beracara di MK
kepada masyarakat luas dalam berbagai bentuk;
2) Penetapan Kode Etik bagi Hakim Konstitusi maupun pegawai
MK;
3) Pengoperasian administrasi perkara berbasis teknologi (Case
Management System) ;
4) Penyampaian putusan kepada pemohon dan pihak terkait
lainnya setelah putusan selesai dibacakan atau pemuatan
putusan dalam website MK, media cetak surat kabar/
majalah;
5) Penyediaan putusan MK atau risalah dan buku putusan
secara cuma-cuma untuk berbagai kalangan, dan kegiatan
lainnya dalam rangka transparansi, akuntabilitas dan
peningkatan pelayanan kepada masyarakat.
2. Dana Luncuran APBN TA 2005
Sesuai Laporan Tahunan MK Tahun 2005, penggunaan dana
luncuran APBN TA 2005 akan disampaikan pada Laporan Tahunan MK
Tahun 2006. Hal itu disebabkan sesuai peraturan Menteri Keuangan
Nomor : 99/PMK.06/2005 Tanggal 19 Oktober 2005 pencairan dana
luncuran selambat-lambatnya dapat dilakukan pada bulan Mei 2006. Dari
jumlah alokasi dana yang diterima sebesar Rp19.692.482.000,- sampai
dengan bulan Mei 2006 telah direalisasikan oleh MK sebesar Rp
19.692.478.882,- (99%), dengan rincian sebagaimana tercantum dalam
Laporan Tahunan 2006
 Mahkamah Konstitusi
Konstitusi
Republik Indonesia

tabel dibawah ini: pengeluaran sebesar Rp 961.054,-. Penerimaan sebesar Rp 1.307.104,-

tersebut telah disetorkan ke rekening Kas Negara sesuai dengan
ketentuan yang berlaku dengan rincian :

JUMLAH
NO URAIAN PENERIMAAN
( RP)
Jasa Giro Rekening Bendaharawan Pengeluaran
1 961.054,-
bulan Jan s.d Desember 2006
Grafik APBN TA 2005
2 Pengembalian porsekot gaji pegawai 346.050,-

Jumlah 1.307.104,-
Sisa alokasi tersebut merupakan pembulatan dalam ribuan rupiah,
karena sesuai mekanisme APBN penulisan angka pada dokumen Disamping itu pada Tahun Anggaran 2006 MK, telah memberikan
anggaran (DIPA Luncuran No.0001.0.1/077-01.0/-/2006 Tanggal 31 sumbangan untuk penerimaan negara yang bersumber dari Pajak, berupa
Desember 2005), hanya dikenal dalam ribuan rupiah dan sisa dana Pajak Penghasilan Orang Pribadi (pasal 21), Pajak Penghasilan (Pasal
tersebut merupakan saving APBN TA 2005 karena sasaran dan target 22), Pajak Pertambahan Nilai dari Perusahaan (PPN) dan Pajak atas
kegiatan telah tercapai. Sewa (Pasal 23) dengan jumlah total sebesar Rp 21.273.073.289,-
dengan rincian sbb:
C. REALISASI PENERIMAAN NEGARA NO URAIAN/JENIS PAJAK JUMLAH ( RP)
1 Pajak Penghasilan ( Pph Pasal 21 ) 2.121.589.909,-
Selain realisasi anggaran perlu disampaikan pula realisasi
2 Pajak Penghasilan ( Pph Pasal 22) 207.207.760,-

NO Penerimaan Negara
URAIAN
ALOKASI
(Rp)
MK padaREALISASI
TA
( Rp)
2006 yang terdiri
SISA dari Penerimaan
DANA (Rp) % 3 Pajak Penghasilan ( Pph pasal 23) 3.343.037.861,-
1 Manajemen Konstruksi 426.357.000,- 426.356.343,- 657,- 99 4 Pajak Pertambahan Nilai ( PPN) 15.811.327.952,-
Negara Bukan Pajak dan Penerimaan Pajak. Berdasarkan DIPA/RKA-
2 Perencana 196.469.000,- 196.468.470,- 530,- 99
Jumlah 21.483.163.482,-
3 KL MK TA 200619.069.655.000,-
Konstruksi Fisik tidak tercantum alokasi dana prakiraan
19.069.654.069,- 931,- Pendapatan
99

Jumlah 19.692.481.000,- 19.692.478.882,- 2.118,- 99

Penerimaan Negara (Jasa II Lainnya). Hal tersebut dikarenakan MK tidak
memiliki sumber-sumber penerimaan Negara Bukan
Pajak seperti penerimaan sewa rumah dinas, karena
belum memiliki rumah dinas atau penerimaan hasil
lelang penghapusan barang milik negara, di
samping berperkara di MK tidak dipungut biaya
sebagaimana ditetapkan dalam Peraturan
Mahkamah Konstitusi (PMK) No. 06 Tahun 2005
tentang Pedoman Beracara Dalam Perkara
Pengujian Undang-Undang dan PMK No. 08 Tahun
2006 tentang Pedoman beracara Dalam Sengketa
Kewenangan Konstitusional Lembaga Negara.
Namun pada tahun anggaran 2006 Mahkamah
Konstitusi telah menghasilkan Penerimaan Negara
Bukan Pajak ( PNBP) sebagai akibat adanya
pengembalian persekot gaji pegawai sebesar Rp
346.050,- dan penerimaan jasa giro bendaharawan

Pendaftaran peserta lelang pengadaan barang MK.

Laporan Tahunan 2006 81

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

& Data
Statistics

Annual Report 2006 83

 Data &Statistics

Data dan Statistics of

Cases and Court Sessions

Number of Cases and Cases Settlement

at The Constitutional Court
Year 2003-2006
93

82

73

41
37
31 32
26 27
24 24
20
11 10
4
0

Registration Cases Pending Number of Cases Cases Decided

Previous Year Handled
2003 2004 2005 2006

Note: Cases Year 2004 including Disputes on

the Result of General Election

Percentage of cases Decided out of Total Number of Cases Average Number of Cases Registered Monthly
Year 2003-2006 Year 2003-2006

88.17%
6.00 6.08
78.05%
72.97%

2.58
2.17

16.67%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 2004 2005 2006

84 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Average Number of Cases Decided Monthly Number of Cases of the Dispute

Year 2003-2006 on the Result of General Election
Year 2004

6.83

252

2.67
2.25

1.00
23 21 21
1 1

PARPOL DPD PRESIDEN/WAPRES

2003 2004 2005 2006
JNumber of Cases Registered JNumber of Cases

Decisions of Cases of Dispute on the Result of General Election Decisions of Cases of Dispute on the Result of General Election
(Political party) Year 2004 (Regional Representatives Council) Year 2004

Granted 3;
Ditarik kembali; 9
Withdrawn 9; Dikabulkan;
14% 3; 14%
4%
Granted 3838;
Dikabulkan;
15%

Tidak diterima;
Denied 7474;
29%
Rejected 3;
Ditolak; 3; 14%
14%

Tidak diterima; 15;

Denied 15;
72%
72%
Rejected
Ditolak; 131;
131; 52%
52%

Annual Report 2006 85

 Data &Statistics
Number of Cases
Pending Year 2005
10; Number of Cases and Settlement of Cases
24% Year 2006

Number
Sisa of Cases
Perkara Tahun
Pending Year
2005; 10; 2005
24% Number
Sisa of Cases
Perkara Tahun
10; Pending Year
2006; 9; 2006
22%
9;
24%
22%

78%
76%

Diputus Tahun
Decided in 2006
2006; 32; 78%
New Baru
Cases 32
Perkara Tahun
Year 2006
2006; 31; 76%
31;

Number of Items/Provisions Decided Based on Laws Reviewed

51 Year 2006

20
18

8
5 6 5
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2
KUHP
UU No.30 Tahun 2002

UU No.31 Tahun 2002

UU No.22 Tahun 2003

UU No.18 Tahun 2003

UU No.14 Tahun 2002

UU No.4 Tahun 2004

UU No.22 Tahun 2004

UU No.23 Tahun 2002

UU No.13 Tahun 2005

UU No.31 Tahun 1999

UU No.8 Tahun 1981

UU No.49 Prp Tahun 1960

UU No.41 Tahun 1999

UU No.39 Tahun 2002

UU No.12 Tahun 1995

UU No.27 Tahun 2004

86 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Kinds of Decisions Concerning Items/Provisions of Laws Reviewed

Based on the Number of Laws Year 2006)

UU No.49 Prp Tahun 1960 2

UU No.8 Tahun 1981 1

KUHP
5

3
UU No.27 Tahun 2004
3

3
UU No.31 Tahun 1999
2

UU No.13 Tahun 2005

1

2
UU No.12 Tahun 1995
Tidak Diterima Ditolak
Dikabulkan Tidak Diterima
4
UU No.39 Tahun 2002 15
1

1
UU No.23 Tahun 2002

6
UU No.22 Tahun 2004
12

UU No.41 Tahun 1999 1

UU No.4 Tahun 2004

1

1
UU No.14 Tahun 2002

2
UU No.18 Tahun 2003 6

UU No.22 Tahun 2003 1

UU No.31 Tahun 2002 2

40
UU No.30 Tahun 2002 10
1

Granted Rejected Denied

Annual Report 2006 87

 Data &Statistics

The Number of Cases and Laws Decided in 2006

88 Annual Report 2006

 5
003/PUU-IV/2006

1
005/PUU-IV/2006

12
005/PUU-IV/2006

3
006/PUU-IV/2006

Denied

Granted
Rejected

Annual Report 2006

6
007/PUU-IV/2006

3
008/PUU-IV/2006

1
009/PUU-IV/2006

010/PUU-IV/2006
40

1
011/PUU-IV/2006

2
012/PUU-IV/2006

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2
013/PUU-IV/2006
003/PUU-IV/2006

6
005/PUU-IV/2006 014/PUU-IV/2006
005/PUU-IV/2006

1
015/PUU-IV/2006
006/PUU-IV/2006

007/PUU-IV/2006

8
016/PUU-IV/2006
Year 2006

008/PUU-IV/2006

1
018/PUU-IV/2006
009/PUU-IV/2006

010/PUU-IV/2006

1
019/PUU-IV/2006
011/PUU-IV/2006

012/PUU-IV/2006
020/PUU-IV/2006 3

013/PUU-IV/2006
3

022/PUU-IV/2006
014/PUU-IV/2006
2

015/PUU-IV/2006
023/PUU-IV/2006

016/PUU-IV/2006
1

018/PUU-III/2005

Year 2006
018/PUU-IV/2006
16

019/PUU-IV/2006 019/PUU-III/2005

020/PUU-IV/2006
4

020/PUU-III/2005
022/PUU-IV/2006
Number of Items/Provisions of Laws Decided Based on the Number of Cases

Based on The Number of Cases

023/PUU-IV/2006 021/PUU-III/2005

018/PUU-III/2005
2

022/PUU-III/2005
019/PUU-III/2005
Position of Items/Provisions of Laws Decided
1

020/PUU-III/2005 026/PUU-III/2005
021/PUU-III/2005

022/PUU-III/2005

026/PUU-III/2005
The Republic of Indonesia

89
The Constitutional Court of
 Data &Statistics

Decisions Concerning the Items/Provisions of laws Reviewed Based on the Number of Cases
Year 2006

026/PUU-III/2005
1
2
022/PUU-III/2005

021/PUU-III/2005 1
4
020/PUU-III/2005

019/PUU-III/2005 15
1
1
018/PUU-III/2005

023/PUU-IV/2006 2

022/PUU-IV/2006
3
3
020/PUU-IV/2006

019/PUU-IV/2006 1

018/PUU-IV/2006 1

016/PUU-IV/2006 7
1
1
015/PUU-IV/2006

014/PUU-IV/2006 6

013/PUU-IV/2006
2
012/PUU-IV/2006 2
1
011/PUU-IV/2006
40
010/PUU-IV/2006
1
009/PUU-IV/2006

008/PUU-IV/2006 3
6
007/PUU-IV/2006

006/PUU-IV/2006
3
005/PUU-IV/2006
12
005/PUU-IV/2006
1
3
003/PUU-IV/2006
2

DGranted
ikab ulkan D itolak
Rejected Tidak D iterima
Denied

90 Annual Report 2006

 (Number
(JumlahofPerkara)
Cases)

0
2
4
6
8
10
12

<1
1<2

Annual Report 2006

9

2<3
(frequency)
(Kali)

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

5
003/PUU-IV/2006

10

3<4

8
005/PUU-IV/2006

7
Year 2006

006/PUU-IV/2006

4<5

(Month)

3
(Bulan)
007/PUU-IV/2006

5
008/PUU-IV/2006

5<6

3
009/PUU-IV/2006
Time Span of Cases settlement

3
010/PUU-IV/2006

3
6<7
011/PUU-IV/2006

6
012/PUU-IV/2006

6
013/PUU-IV/2006

7<8

5
014/PUU-IV/2006
1

3
015/PUU-IV/2006

8<9

5
016/PUU-IV/2006

Nomor Perkara
Year 2006

1
018/PUU-III/2005

(Case Number)
5
018/PUU-IV/2006

3
019/PUU-III/2005

4
019/PUU-IV/2006

3
020/PUU-III/2005

4
020/PUU-IV/2006

4
021/PUU-III/2005
Number of Sessions during The Settlement of Cases

4
022/PUU-III/2005

3
022/PUU-IV/2006

4
023/PUU-IV/2006

5
026/PUU-III/2005
The Republic of Indonesia

91
The Constitutional Court of
 Data &Statistics

Registered Cases During the Year of 2006

No
NO
Number
NOMOR and
DAN POKOK Date of
TANGGAL
PEMOHON PANEL
Substance
PERKARAof Cases Registration
REGISTRASI Petitioner Panel of HAKIM
Justices
001/PUU-IV/2006
Drs. H. Badrul Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar,SH., MS.
Pengujian Undang-undang 09/01/2006
1 Kamal MM dan Prof. Dr. H. Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H
terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 10.30 WIB
KH. Syihabuddin Soedarsono, S.H.
1945
002/SKLN-IV/2006 Drs. H. Badrul Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar,SH., MS.
18/01/2006
2 Sengketa Kewenangan Lembaga Kamal MM dan Prof. Dr. H. Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H.
10.30 WIB
Negara KH. Syihabuddin Soedarsono, S.H.
003/PUU-IV/2006
Pengujian UU Nomor 31 Tahun Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar,SH., MS.
13/03/2006 Ir. Dawud
3 1999 jo. UU Nomor 20 Tahun 2001 Prof. Dr. H. Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H.
10.00 WIB Djatmiko
tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Soedarsono, S.H.
Pidana Korupsi
004/SKLN-IV/2006 Drs. H. M. Saleh Prof.HAS.Natabaya,SH., LLM.
13/03/2006
4 Sengketa Kewenangan Lembaga Manaf dan Drs. Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
10.30 WIB
Negara Solihin Sari Dr. Hardjono, SH., MCL.
005/PUU-IV/2006
Prof. Dr. Paulus
Pengujian UU Nomor 22 Tahun H. Achmad Roestandi, SH.
13/03/2006 Effendi Lotulung,
5 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial dan Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH., MS.
11.00 WIB S.H. dkk (Hakim
UU Nomor 4 Tahun 2004 tentang I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.
Agung)
Kekuasaan Kehakiman
006/PUU-IV/2006
Prof.HAS.Natabaya,SH., LLM.
Pengujian UU Nomor 27 Tahun 29/03/2006 Asmara Nababan,
6 Soedarsono, SH.
2004 tentang Komisi Kebenaran dan 14.30 WIB S.H. dkk.
Dr. Hardjono, SH., MCL.
Rekonsiliasi
007/PUU-IV/2006
Pengujian UU Nomor 22 Tahun H. Achmad Roestandi, SH.
05/04/2006
7 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial dan MF. Cahyobaroto Prof.HAS.Natabaya,SH., LLM.
13.15 WIB
UU Nomor 5 Tahun 2004 tentang I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.
MA
008/PUU-IV/2006
Pengujian UU Nomor 22 Tahun Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH., MS.
13/04/2006 Djoko Edhi Sutjipto
8 2003 tentang Susunan dan Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
09.00 WIB Abdurahman
Kedudukan MPR, DPR, DPD dan Dr. Hardjono, SH., MCL.
DPRD
009/PUU-IV/2006 A. Wahyu Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH., MS.
09/05/2006
9 Pengujian UU Nomor 18 Tahun Purwana, SH., MH. Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
14.00 WIB
2003 tentang Advokat Dkk H. Achmad Roestandi, SH.
010/PUU-IV/2006
Masyarakat I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.
PUU Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang 16/05/2006
10 Hukum Indonesia Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H.
Komisi Pemberantarasan Tindak 16.00 WIB
(MHI) Soedarsono, S.H.
Pidana Korupsi
011/PUU-IV/2006 Amirudin dan Prof.HAS.Natabaya,SH., LLM.
05/07/2006
11 PUU Nomor 14 Tahun 2002 tentang Putut Aji Pusara, S. Soedarsono, SH.
13.30 WIB
Pengadilan Pajak Kom. Dr. Hardjono, SH., MCL.
012/PUU-IV/2006 Drs. Mulyana
I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.
PUU Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang 14/07/2006 Wirakusumah dan
12 Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak 14.00 WIB Capt. Tarcisius
H. Achmad Roestandi, SH.
Pidana Korupsi Walla
013/PUU-IV/2006
Prof. Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H.
Pengujian Pasal 134 dan 136 bis 1/08/2006
13 Eggi Sudjana Prof.HAS.Natabaya,SH., LLM.
KUHP tentang Penghinaan 10.00 WIB
Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
Presiden RI terhadap UUD 1945
014/PUU-IV/2006 Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH.,MS.
3/08/2006
14 PUU Nomor 18 Tahun 2003 Tentang H. Sudjono, S.H Achmad Roestandi, SH.
10.15 WIB
Advokat SoedarsonoSH.
015/PUU-IV/2006 Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH.,MS.
7/08/2006 Fatahillah Hoed,
15 PUU Nomor 18 Tahun 2003 Tentang Achmad Roestandi, SH.
10.30 WIB SH
Advokat Soedarsono, SH.
016/PUU-IV/200
Prof. DR. I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.
PUU Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 Tentang 10/08/2006
16 Nazaruddin Achmad Roestandi, SH.
Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak 10.30 WIB
Sjamsudin, dkk Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
Pidana Korupsi
017/PUU-IV/2006 Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
11/08/2006
17 PUU Nomor 32 Tahun 2004 Tentang Yandril, S.Sos, dkk Prof. Dr.H. M. Laica Marzuki,SH.
13.30 WIB
Pemerintah Daerah I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.

92 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

No Number and Date of

Substance of Cases Registration Petitioner Panel of Justices

NOMOR DAN POKOK TANGGAL Soedarsono, S.H.

NO PEMOHON PANEL HAKIM
PERKARA REGISTRASI
018/PUU-IV/2006
Dr. Harjono, S.H., MCL
PUU Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 tentang 29/08/2006 K.G. Widjaja, S.H.,
18 Prof. Dr.H. M. Laica Marzuki,SH.
Kitab Undnag-Undang Hukum 11.00 WIB MH, dkk
I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.
Acara Pidana
019/PUU-IV/2006
I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.
PUU Nomor 30 Tahun 2002 tentang 6/09/2006 Capt. Tarcisius
19 Achmad Roestandi, SH.
Komisi Pemberantasan Tindak 11.00 WIB Walla
Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
Pidana Korupsi
020/PUU-IV/2006
Prof.HAS.Natabaya,SH., LLM.
Pengujian UU Nomor 27 Tahun 11/09/2006 Drs. Arukat
20 Soedarsono, SH.
2004 tentang Komisi Kebenaran dan 10.00 WIB Djaswadi, dkk
Dr. Hardjono, SH., MCL
Rekonsiliasi
021/PUU-IV/2006
Prof. Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H.
Pengujian UU Nomor 20 Tahun 26/09/2006 Asosiasi BP PTSI,
21 Prof.HAS.Natabaya,SH., LLM.
2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan 14.00 WIB dkk.
Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH.,MS.
Nasional
022/PUU-IV/2006
Prof. Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H.
Pengujian Pasal 134, 136 bis dan 137 28/09/2006
22 Pandapotan Lubis Prof.HAS.Natabaya,SH., LLM.
KUHP tentang Penghinaan 11.00 WIB
Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
Presiden RI terhadap UUD 1945
023/PUU-IV/2006
Dr. Harjono, S.H., MCL.
Pengujian UU Nomor 49 Prp Tahun 3/10/2006 Kasdin
23 Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH.,MS.
1960 tentang Panitia Urusan 11.30 WIB Simanjuntak, dkk.
I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH., MH.
Piutang Negara terhadap UUD 1945
024/PUU-IV/2006
Pengujian UU Nomor 12 Tahun
2003 tentang Pemilu DPR, DPD dan
DPRD, UU No. 23 Tahun 2003
Kombes Pol. (Purn) Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH.,MS.
tentang Pemilu Presiden/Wapres, 3/11/2006
24 Drs. H. M. Sofwat Achmad Roestandi, SH.
UU No. 32 Tahun 2004 tentang 10.00 WIB
Hadi, S.H. SoedarsonoSH.
Pemerintahan Daerah, UU No. 2
Tahun 2002 tentang Kepolisian, UU
No. 34 Tahun 2004 tentang TNI
terhadap UUD 1945
025/PUU-IV/2006
Prof. Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H.
Pengujian UU Nomor 14 Tahun 17/11/2006 Fathul Hadie
25 Dr. Harjono, S.H., MCL.
2005 tentang Guru dan Dosen 10.00 WIB Utsman
Maruarar Siahaan, SH.
terhadap UUD 1945
026/PUU-IV/2006 I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH. MH.
28/12/2006 Pengurus Besar
26 Pengujian UU Nomor 18 Tahun Dr. Harjono, S.H., MCL.
10.00 WIB PGRI
2006 tentang APBN 2007 Maruarar Siahaan, S.H.

27
Annual Report 2006
027/SKLN-IV/2006
SKLN antara DPRD Poso dengan
28/12/2006 Ketua dan Wakil
Prof. H.A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH.,MS. 93
Achmad Roestandi, SH.
Gub. Sulteng (Presiden dan 10.00 WIB Ketua DPRD Poso
I Dewa Gede Palguna, SH. MH.
Mendagri - Pihak Terkait)
028/PUU-IV/2006 Prof. Moh. Laica Marzuki, S.H.
28/12/2006
 Data &Statistics

Registered Decisions in the Year of 2006

Number and Decision/

No Petitioner Panel of Justices Court Clerck
Substance of Cases Stipulation

94 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Number of Justice Deliberation Meeting

during the Settlement Cases
year 2006
33
35

30

25
(frequency)

19
18
20 16
15 15
(Kali)

13
15
9
8 8
10 7 7
6
5 5 5 5 5
4
3 3
5 1 1 1

0
003/PUU-IV/2006

005/PUU-IV/2006

006/PUU-IV/2006

007/PUU-IV/2006

008/PUU-IV/2006

009/PUU-IV/2006

010/PUU-IV/2006

011/PUU-IV/2006

012/PUU-IV/2006

013/PUU-IV/2006

014/PUU-IV/2006

015/PUU-IV/2006

016/PUU-IV/2006

018/PUU-III/2005

018/PUU-IV/2006

019/PUU-III/2005

019/PUU-IV/2006

020/PUU-III/2005

020/PUU-IV/2006

021/PUU-III/2005

022/PUU-III/2005

022/PUU-IV/2006

023/PUU-IV/2006

026/PUU-III/2005
Nomor Perkara
(Case Number)

Statistics of Employees

Composition of Employees of the Secretariat General and the Registry

of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia
Year 2006

Eselon I 2

Eselon II 3

Eselon III 8

Eselon IV 20

Panitera Pengganti 5

Dokter 1

Staf Fungsional Umum 22

CPNS 90

Perbantuan PNS 1

Tenaga Honorer 5

Tenaga Ahli 7

Dokter perbantuan 2

Administratur Penerbitan 5

Tenaga Perbantuan Non Instansi 29

Tenaga Perbantuan POLRI 18

Peneliti Tidak Tetap 3

Annual Report 2006 95

 Data &Statistics

Level of Employees Education

Year 2006

50

35

23

14
12
9

3 3
1 1
SD
Strata II

Strata I

Diploma III

Diploma II

SMU/Sederajat

Employees Attendance January – October

Year 2006
PNS CPNS

12.00
11.41

10.00 9.83

8.00

6.64

6.00
(%)

5.39

4.14 4.32
4.00
3.48 3.40 3.74
2.70 3.15 3.24
2.59 2.65
2.00 1.67
1.16
0.75 1.17 0.62
0.05
0.00
Januari

Februari

April

Mei

Juni

Juli

September

Oktober
Agustus
Maret

Employees Working Hours

absent Late-Coming Leaving Office before the End of Working Hours
January – November Year 2006

9.20
9.00 9.00

9.00
8.74
8.80 8.69
8.62
8.50
8.60

8.40
(Jam)

8.20
8.25
8.00 8.17
8.12
8.00 8.03
7.80

7.60

7.40
Agustus
Maret

September

Oktober

Nopember
Januari

Februari

April

Mei

Juni

Juli

96 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

List of Echelon Officials of

Secretariat General and Registry of Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia
Year 2006

No Nama
Name Rank/Class Position
No Pangkat/Golongan Jabatan
NIP
Janedjri M. Gaffar Pembina Utama
1 Sekretaris Jenderal
190000252 Madya (IV/d)
Drs. H. Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, S.H.,
Pembina Utama
2 M.Hum. Panitera
Madya (IV/d)
150198714
Drs. Sudihardjo, M.A. Pembina Utama Kepala Biro
3
060043898 Muda (IV/c) Perencanaan dan Keuangan
Achmad Saefudin, S.H Pembina
4 Kapala Bagian Perencanaan
060048341 (IV/a)
Tetra Pordandy, S.E. Penata Muda Kepala Sub Bagian
5
060079316 Tk .I (III/b) Program dan Anggaran
Kepala Sub Bagian
Sarpin, S.H. Penata
6 Analisa, Evaluasi dan
210000747 (III/c)
Laporan
Kurniasih Panti Rahayu, S.E. Penata Kepala Sub Bagian
7
740005458 (III/c) Kas dan Perbendaharaan
Tatang Garjito, S.E,.M.M. Penata Kepala Sub Bagian
8
060077065 (III/c) Akuntansi dan Verifikasi
Nelly Murni, S.Sos. Pembina
9 Kapala Bagian Tata Usaha
190000206 (IV/a)
Santosa Penata Tk. I Kepala Sub Bagian
10
200000098 (III/d) Persuratan
Syahrudin, S.E. Penata Tk. I Kepala Sub Bagian
11
200000370 (III/d) Arsip dan Dokumentasi
Drs. Mulyono Pembina
12 Kapala Bagian Kepegawaian
260002765 (IV/a)
Mula Pospos, S.E. Penata Tk. I Kepala Sub Bagian
13
200000376 (III/d) Tata Usaha Kepegawaian
Kepala Sub Bagian
Faikoh, BPA. Penata Tk. I
14 Pembinaan dan
200000100 (III/d)
Pengembangan Pegawai
Kepala Sub Bagian
Imam Margono, S.E., M.M. Penata
15 Pengadaan, Penyimpanan
060078385 (III/c)
dan Inventarisasi
Arif Bintarto Yuwono, S.Sos. Penata Kepala Sub Bagian
16
060091306 (III/c) Rumah Tangga
H. Bambang Witono, S.H. Pembina Tk. I Kapala Bagian
17
200000180 (IV/b) Hubungan Masyarakat
Kepala Sub Bagian
Sigit Purnomo, S.IP.,M.M. Penata
18 Antar Lembaga dan
040063461 (III/c)
Masyarakat
Heru Setiawan, S.E. Penata Muda Tk. I Kepala Sub Bagian
19
740004893 (III/b) Media Massa
Kapala Bagian
Dewa Ketut Legeputra,S.Sos Pembina Tk. I
20 Protokol dan Tata Usaha
020002742 (IV/b)
Pimpinan
Poniman, S.Sos. Penata
21 Kepala Sub Bagian Protokol
050028115 (III/c)

Annual Report 2006 97

 Data &Statistics
No NameNama Rank/Class
Pangkat/Golongan Position
Jabatan
NIP
Edy Santoso, B.A. Penata Kepala Sub Bagian
22
190000264 (III/c) Tata Usaha Pimpinan
Kepala Biro
Kasianur Sidauruk, S.H. Pembina Utama
23 Administrasi Perkara dan
040042844 Muda (IV/c)
Persidangan
Ida Ria Tambunan, S.H. Pembina Kapala Bagian
24
040062141 (IV/a) Administrasi Perkara
Wiryanto, S.H., M.Hum. Penata Kepala Subbagian
25
150235695 (III/c) Registrasi
Kepala Sub Bagian
Muhidin, S.H., M.Hum.
26 Penata Tk. I (III/d) Penyusunan Kaidah Hukum
131262893
dan Dokumentasi Perkara
Triyono Edy Budhiarto, S.H. Kapala Bagian Persidangan
27 Penata Tk. I (III/d)
040060686
Ina Zuchriyah, S.H. Penata Muda Kepala Sub Bagian
28
040070189 Tk. I (III/b) Pelayanan Persidangan
Fadzlun Budi SN, S.H.,M.Hum. Penata Tk. I Kepala Sub Bagian
29
150266242 (III/d) Pemanggilan
Kapala Bagian
Drs. Warsono Pembina Tk. I
30 Pelayanan Risalah dan
200000176 (IV/b)
Putusan Perkara
Drs. Morlan Augus Siahaan, M.M. Pembina Kepala Sub Bagian
31
200000308 (IV/a) Pelayanan Risalah
Makhmudah, S.H. Penata Tk. I Kepala Sub Bagian
32
170021196 (III/d) Pelayanan Putusan
Winarno Yudho,S.H.,M.A. Pembina Utama Kepala Pusat Penelitian dan
33
130531800 Muda (IV/c) Pengkajian

List of Expert Staff of the Secretariat General and Registry of

the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia)

No
No NameNama Pangkat/Golongan Position
Jabatan
NIP
1 Dr. Zen Zanibar M.Z., S.H. Staf Ahli
2 Dr. Taufiqurahman Syahuri, S.H., M.H. Staf Ahli
3 Machmud Aziz, S.H., M.H. Staf Ahli
4 Refliani, S.H., M.H. Staf Ahli
5 A. Irmanputra Sidin, S.H., M.H. Staf Ahli
6 Totok Wintarto, S.H. Staf Ahli
7 Wasis Susetio, S.H. Staf Ahli
8 Rofiqul Umam Ahmad, S.H., M.H. Staf Ahli

List of Court Clerks of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia

No NameNama Rank/Class
Pangkat/Golongan Position
Jabatan
q NIP
Alfius Ngatrin, S.H. Penata Tingkat I
19 Panitera Pengganti
040032132 (III/d)
Eddy Purwanto, S.H. Penata
10
2 Panitera Pengganti
040069117 (III/c)
Cholidin Nasir, S.H. Penata Muda
11
3 Panitera Pengganti
040069826 Tk. I (III/b)
12
4 Sunardi, S.H. Penata Muda
Panitera Pengganti
040065911 Tk. I (III/b)

98 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Administration Statistics

Incoming Letters Based on Types of Letters

Year 2006

Uji Materi UU terhadap UUD (Judicial

1607 Review)
Pengaduan/ Perlindungan Hukum

Pernyataan Sikap/ Ungkapan Pendapat/

Usulan/ Saran/ Masukan
Permohonan/ Permintaan/ Pertanyaan/
Klarifikasi/ Konfirmasi
Penyampaian Salinan Keputusan/ Peraturan/
UU/ Instruksi Outgoing Letters Based on Function
Lamaran Kerja, Ijin Penelitian, Magang, PKL,
KKL/ Study Banding
Year 2006
Alih Instansi, mutasi, kenaikan pangkat

38; 2% 90; 4%
77; 3%
Kerjasama/ Penawaran/ Proposal 81; 3% 34; 1%
21; 1%
Ucapan Selamat/ Terima Kasih
471
384 366 Undangan

Pengiriman bahan cetakan/ majalah/ koran/

162 169 157 fax/e-mail/ CD
119 136
78 Lain-lain
37
7

1040; 45%
925; 39%

52; 2%
Perencanaan Keuangan Tata Usaha
Kepegawaian Perlengkapan Humas & Protokol
Administrasi Perkara Puslitka Lain-lain

Annual Report 2006 99

 Data &Statistics

Outgoing Letters based on Types of Letters

Year 2006

Bahan Publikasi 47
Bantuan Kepolisian 15
Diklat 25
Kenaikan Gaji Berkala (KGB) 34
Kerja Sama 10
Kunjungan 40
Laporan 31
Magang / PKL 11
Pengumuman 29
Penyampaian Risalah 18
Pemberitahuan 35
Permohonan 157
Surat Ijin 34
Surat Keterangan 92
Surat Pengantar 15
Surat Pernyataan 284
Surat Tugas 180
Ucapan 50
Undangan 390
Lain-lain 861

Decree of Secretary General

Based on Department to which the Decree is Intended

Perencanaan 34

Keuangan 73

Kepegawaian 63

Tata Usaha 5

Perlengkapan 18

Humas 8

Puslitka 10

Administrasi Perkara 7

Lainnya 12

100 Annual Report 2006

 Hukum Secara Umum

130
Hukum Internasional

109
Hukum Tata Negara

221

57
Hukum Publik

41
Hukum Sosial

48
Hukum Pidana

Hukum Perdata

110
95
Hukum Perdata dan Pengadilan

Annual Report 2006

33
UU, Peraturan dan Perkara

10
Adm. Pemerintahan Pusat
Library Statistics

28
Adm. Pemerintahan Daerah

6
Pem. Pusat Indonesia

10
Hukum Secara Umum Kesejahteraan Sosial

172
13
Hukum Internasional Pelayanan Sosial

56
Hukum Tata Negara Kriminologi

130 130
3
Pendidikan Tinggi

77
Hukum Publik
Year 2006

1
Adat Istiadat

53
Hukum Sosial

9
Bhs. Inggris

70
Hukum Pidana

21
Kesusastraan
Hukum Perdata

142
Biografi

159
Hukum Perdata dan Pengadilan

138
Agama
233

62
UU, Peraturan dan Perkara

8
Psikologi

13
Adm. Pemerintahan Pusat

70
Kamus & Ensiklopedi

28
Adm. Pemerintahan Daerah

22
Filsafat
Number of Titles of Library Collection By Categories

31
Pem. Pusat Indonesia
Sosial dan Ekonomi
447

11
Kesejahteraan Sosial
32

Sejarah

16
Pelayanan Sosial
12

Manajemen

Year 2006

82
Kriminologi

3
Pendidikan Tinggi

1
Adat Istiadat

9
Bhs. Inggris

21
Kesusastraan

Biografi

159
Agama

306

8
Psikologi

70
Kamus & Ensiklopedi
Number of Copies of Library Collection By Categories

26
Filsafat

Sosial dan Ekonomi

625

Sejarah

165

17
Manajemen
The Republic of Indonesia

101
The Constitutional Court of
 Data &Statistics

Media Statistics

Number of media Coverage on the Constitutional Court

By Names of Newspapers
Year 2006
346

269

201
176
164
155 155
144
118

90

58
KORAN TEMPO

MEDIA INDONESIA

REPUBLIKA

SUARA KARYA

RAKYAT MERDEKA

INDONESIA
KOMPAS

THE JAKARTA POST

SINAR HARAPAN

PEMBARUAN

LAIN-LAIN
SEPUTAR
SUARA

Remarks: Media Watch Results on Randomly Categorized News

Number of Newspaper Coverage on The Constitutional Court

Year 2006

291

261

167
150 150 151
143
126
109
89 91
68

JAN FEB MAR APR MEI JUN JUL AGS SEP OKT NOV DES

Remarks: Media Watch Results on Randomly Categorized News and Newspapers

102 Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Number of Online Media Coverage on The Constitutional Court

Year 2006

66

56

42 43

37
33
31

25
20
15
13 12

JAN FEB MAR APR MEI JUN JUL AGS SEP OKT NOV DES

Remarks: Media Watch Results on Hukumonline.com and Detik.com

Randomly Categorized News

Number of Visitors of Decision Number PUU-I/2003

on the Constitutional Court Website
Year 2006
528

416
386

318

237

176 169 168

149 149 156
121 115 126
110
81 92 85
75 65
63 60 56 51
001/PUU-I/2003

002/PUU-I/2003

003/PUU-I/2003

004/PUU-I/2003

005/PUU-I/2003

006/PUU-I/2003

007/PUU-I/2003

008/PUU-I/2003

009/PUU-I/2003

010/PUU-I/2003

011/PUU-I/2003

012/PUU-I/2003

013/PUU-I/2003

014/PUU-I/2003

015/PUU-I/2003

016/PUU-I/2003

017/PUU-I/2003

018/PUU-I/2003

019/PUU-I/2003

020/PUU-I/2003

021/PUU-I/2003

022/PUU-I/2003

023/PUU-I/2003

024/PUU-I/2003

Annual Report 2006 103

 52
001/PUU-II/2004

104
61
002/PUU-II/2004

60
003/PUU-II/2004

004/PUU-II/2004

127

71
005/PUU-II/2004

006/PUU-II/2004

568

58
007/PUU-II/2004

74
008/PUU-II/2004

053/PUU-II/2004

104
67
054/PUU-II/2004

86
055/PUU-II/2004

056/PUU-II/2004

162

78
057/PUU-II/2004
Data &Statistics

001/PUU-III/2005

132
058/PUU-II/2004

123
002/PUU-III/2005

111
98
059/PUU-II/2004
Year 2006

003/PUU-III/2005

145
060/PUU-II/2004
328

59
004/PUU-III/2005

87
061/PUU-II/2004

005/PUU-III/2005

82
063/PUU-II/2004

228
79
006/PUU-III/2005 064/PUU-II/2004

103
007/PUU-III/2005 065/PUU-II/2004
on the Constitutional Court Website

136

384
009/PUU-III/2005 066/PUU-II/2004
161

010/PUU-III/2005 067/PUU-II/2004
306

118 110
Number of Visitors of Decision Number PUU-II/2004

069/PUU-II/2004
251

011/PUU-III/2005

371
59

012/PUU-III/2005 070/PUU-II/2004

165
071/PUU-II/2004
208

013/PUU-III/2005

112
072/PUU-II/2004

Year 2006
142

95
014/PUU-III/2005
073/PUU-II/2004
243

015/PUU-III/2005

174

99
016/PUU-III/2005

017/PUU-III/2005

018/PUU-III/2005

190 193
on the Constitutional Court Website
019/PUU-III/2005

478
020/PUU-III/2005

222
021/PUU-III/2005
Number of Visitors of Decision Number PUU-III/2005

319
022/PUU-III/2005

246
024/PUU-III/2005

528
026/PUU-III/2005
735

Annual Report 2006

 001/PUU-IV/2006

315
003/PUU-IV/2006

2231
005/PUU-IV/2006

1729
006/PUU-IV/2006

345
007/PUU-IV/2006

490

Annual Report 2006

008/PUU-IV/2006

262
009/PUU-IV/2006

396
010/PUU-IV/2006

692
011/PUU-IV/2006

222

45
009/PHPU.C1-II/2004

44
011/PHPU.C1-II/2004 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006

665
Year 2006

55
016/PHPU.C1-II/2004
013-022/PUU-IV/2006

441

60
021/PHPU.C1-II/2004
014/PUU-IV/2006

153

51
023/PHPU.C1-II/2004

015/PUU-IV/2006

50
145
024/PHPU.C1-II/2004
on the Constitutional Court Website

52
026/PHPU.C1-II/2004 017PUU-IV/2006
152

46
028/PHPU.C1-II/2004
018/PUU-IV/2006
145

49
029/PHPU.C1-II/2004
Number of Visitors of Decision Number PUU-IV/2006

020/PUU-IV/2006
322

45
031/PHPU.C1-II/2004

43
033/PHPU.C1-II/2004
84

023/PUU-IV/2006

44
034/PHPU.C1-II/2004

Year 2006

43
035/PHPU.C1-II/2004

71
036/PHPU.C1-II/2004

43
037/PHPU.C1-II/2004

42
038/PHPU.C1-II/2004

54
on the Constitutional Court Website
039/PHPU.C1-II/2004

37
040/PHPU.C1-II/2004

39
041/PHPU.C1-II/2004

41
042/PHPU.C1-II/2004
Number of Visitors of Decision Number PHPU.CI-II/2004

41
045/PHPU.C1-II/2004

43
052/PHPU.C1-II/2004
The Republic of Indonesia

105
The Constitutional Court of
 44
010/PHPU.A-II/2004

106
46
012/PHPU.A-II/2004

45
013/PHPU.A-II/2004

67
014/PHPU.A-II/2004

015/PHPU.C1-II/2004

170

61
017/PHPU.A-II/2004

46
018/PHPU.A-II/2004

39
019/PHPU.A-II/2004

41
020/PHPU.A-II/2004

37
022/PHPU.A-II/2004

44
025/PHPU.A-II/2004

70
027/PHPU.A-II/2004
Data &Statistics

021/PUU-IV/2006, 025/PUU-IV/2006

13
40
030/PHPU.A-II/2004
Year 2006

46
032/PHPU.A-II/2004

6
015/PUU-IV/2006

48
043/PHPU.A-II/2004

2
015/PUU-IV/2006

47
044/PHPU.A-II/2004

2
015/PUU-IV/2006
71

046/PHPU.A-II/2004
on the Constitutional Court Website

45

047/PHPU.A-II/2004

9
020/PUU-IV/2006
40

048/PHPU.A-II/2004

6
018/PUU-IV/2006
40

049/PHPU.A-II/2004
Number of Visitors of Decision Number PHPU.A-II/2004

7
025/PUU-IV/2006
46

050/PHPU.A-II/2004
42

051/PHPU.A-II/2004
023/PUU-IV/2006

12
Year 2006
006/PUU-IV/2006 & 020/PUU-IV/2006

13
013 & 022/PUU-IV/2006

29

4
024/PUU-IV/2006

on the Constitutional Court Website

4
Number of Visitors of Court Transcript
025/PUU-IV/2006

018/PUU-IV/2006

15
014/PUU-IV/2006

14
014/PUU-IV/2006

13

Annual Report 2006

 025/PUU-IV/2006

34
024/PUU-IV/2006

24
023/PUU-IV/2006

49
022/PUU-IV/2006

51
021/PUU-IV/2006

37

Annual Report 2006

018/PUU-IV/2006

47
BMK Maret - April
020/PUU-IV/2006

47

220
2006

BMK Januari - 019/PUU-IV/2006

66

105
Februari 2006

017/PUU-IV/2006

37
BMK Nopember -
Year 2006

47
Desember 2005
016/PUU-IV/2006

46
BMK September -

35
Oktober 2005
015/PUU-IV/2006
86

BMK Juli - Agustus

43
2005 014/PUU-IV/2006
62
on the Constitutional Court Website

37
BMK Mei - Juni 2005 013/PUU-IV/2006
67
Number of Visitors of Summary of Decision

BMK Maret - April 012/PUU-IV/2006

77

37
2005

011/PUU-IV/2006
38

BMK Desember 2004

40
- Januari 2005

BMK Oktober -

45
Year 2006
Nopember 2004

35
BMK September 2004

BMK Edisi Khusus

55
2004

on the Constitutional Court Website

56
Number of Visitors of Majalah Konstitusi
BMK April 2004

55
BMK Maret 2004

47
BMK Pebruari 2004

81
BMK Desember 2003
The Republic of Indonesia

107
The Constitutional Court of
108
Volume 3
Nomor 2, Mei

264
2006

Volume 3
Nomor 1,

141
Februari 2006

Volume 2

71
Nomor 3,
Nopember 2005

Volume 2

73
Nomor 2,
September 2005

Volume 2
Year 2006

83
Nomor 1, Juli
Data &Statistics

2005

Volume 1

61
Nomor 3, Mei
2005
on the Constitutional Court Website

Volume 1
Number of Visitors of Jurnal Konstitusi

58
Nomor 2,
Desember 2004

Volume 1
Nomor 1, Juli
103

2004

Annual Report 2006

 The Constitutional Court of
The Republic of Indonesia

Board of Directors
Jimly Asshiddiqie
M. Laica Marzuki
Abdul Mukthie Fadjar
Achmad Roestandi
H.A.S. Natabaya
Harjono
I Dewa Gede Palguna
Maruarar Siahaan
Soedarsono

Publisher Team
Directors Janedjri M. Gaffar
H. Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi

Project Managers Winarno Yudho

Sudihardjo
Kasianur Sidauruk

Secretary Rofiqul-Umam Ahmad

Deputy Secretary Budi H. Wibowo

Editors Rofiqul-Umam Ahmad

Muchamad A. Safaat

Writers Muchamad Ali Safaat (Coordinator)

Rafiuddin Munis Tamar
WS. Koentjoro
Bisaryadi
Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono
Wiwik Budi Wasito

Translators Isma Afifah Romani

Helmi Kasim

Data Collectors Teguh Wahyudi

Achmad Edi Subiyanto
Nur Rosihin
Udi Hartadi

Finance Muchlis Nova

Photographers Denny Feishal

Novena Jati Nugraha
Gani

Graphic Designer Sutopo Toto Hermito

Layouters Nanang Subekti
Mardian Wibowo

Annual Report 2006 109

ISBN 978-979-15769-0-1