Name: Diandra Caroline Siagian

Class: Law Class 3-2023

Student ID: 017202300131

Subject: Constitutional and Administrative Law

FINAL EXAM

Analysis of:

1. One Court Decision in the Constitutional Court

 Number: 69/PUU-XIII/2015
 Link (URL): https://www.mkri.id/index.php?page=web.Putusan&id=1&kat=1&cari=69%2FPUU-
XIII%2F2015
1. Summary of the Case: Mrs. Ike Farida, an Indonesian citizen married to a Japanese citizen,
submitted a judicial review to the Constitutional Court of Indonesia. She was rejected by a
developer to purchase flats due to her marital status, as Indonesian law prohibits women
married to foreign citizens from buying land and buildings. The developer's letter also
mentioned that property acquired during marriage becomes joint property, which would apply
to mixed marriages without a separate property agreement. Mrs. Farida feels her constitutional
rights are not fulfilled, as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution and the Constitutional Court Law.
She claims that Articles 21 and 36 of the UUPA (Basic Agrarian Law) and Articles 29 and 35 of the
Marriage Law are against the 1945 Constitution. She asserts that these articles violate her rights
to own a house with Building Use Rights, and discriminate against Indonesian citizens married to
foreigners. Mrs. Farida requests the Court to grant her application, declare that the phrase
"Indonesian citizens" in Articles 21 and 36 of the UUPA does not apply to Indonesian citizens
married to foreigners, and that the phrase "joint property" in Article 35 of the Marriage Law
should exclude Property Rights and Building Use Rights owned by Indonesian citizens married to
foreigners. She also requests the Court to declare that certain phrases in Articles 21, 29, and 35
are not binding and are unconstitutional.
2. Constitutional Court Decision: Based on the results of the material review conducted by the
Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court gave a decision to grant part of the ruling with a
conditional unconstitutional decision as follows:
a) Article 29 paragraph (1) of Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage is contrary to the
1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as
"At the time, before it takes place or during the marriage bond, both parties may, by mutual
agreement, submit an agreement written legalized by a marriage registrar or notary, after
which the contents also apply to third parties as long as the third party is involved".
 b) Article 29 paragraph (3) of Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage is contrary to the
1945 Constitution and has no meaning. binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as
"the agreement comes into force from the time of marriage performed, unless otherwise
specified in the agreement".
c) Article 29 paragraph (4) of Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage is contrary to the
1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted during the
marriage, the marriage agreement can concern marital assets or other agreements, cannot
be changed or revoked, unless there is an agreement from both parties to change or revoke
it, and the change or revocation does not harm a third party. Then ordered the decision to
be published in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia. Meanwhile, the rest rejected
the applicant's application.
3. Analysis: The Constitutional Court has examined the legal considerations of Article 29
paragraphs (1), (3), and (4) concerning marriage agreements. Marital assets can cause disputes,
and a marriage agreement can help avoid this by separating assets, making each party
responsible for their debts, and allowing them to sell assets or apply for credit without their
partner's permission. The Constitutional Court views a marriage agreement as a contract based
on several principles, including freedom of contract, consensualism, binding force, personality,
trust, and good faith. The Court has deemed these provisions conditionally unconstitutional,
leading to changes in the Marriage Law regarding marriage agreements. Marriage agreements
can now be made at the time, before, or during the marriage. The agreement must be written,
ratified by a marriage registrar or notary, and cannot violate the limits of law, religion, and
morality. The agreement takes effect from the time of marriage, unless specified otherwise, and
cannot be changed or revoked without both parties' agreement, as long as it does not harm a
third party. The Constitutional Court's decision allows for legal protection of pre-marital assets
and provides opportunities for Indonesian citizens marrying foreign citizens to manage their
assets. This decision also benefits married couples, particularly those of different nationalities,
by allowing them to make a marriage agreement during the marriage. The importance of
marriage agreements in protecting marital assets is increasingly being recognized, and the
Constitutional Court's decision facilitates the making of such agreements by allowing them to be
made during the marriage and ratified by a notary. This decision provides a fresh perspective for
married couples, particularly those of different nationalities, who wish to protect their marital
assets.

2. One Court Decision in the TUN/Tata Usaha Negara (State Administrative) Section

 Number: 17/G/KI/2020/PTUN.PTK
 Link (URL):
https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/zaebc99de4d55e7ebbbd313034323
335.html
1. Summary of the Case: Public Information Disputes in the State Administrative Court typically
involve parties from the Information Commission, where the dispute is initially raised between
 an information applicant and a State Public Agency. Information is a fundamental need for
personal development, social environment, and national resilience. Public information, as
defined by Law Number 14 of 2008, pertains to state administration and other public bodies'
management. The right to obtain information is a human right, enshrined in Article 28F of the
1945 Constitution. The KIP Law aims to regulate the openness of information and state
administration transparency, emphasizing the importance of openness in democratic countries.
Good governance requires open government, which is transparent, open, and participatory. The
KIP Law establishes the Public Information Commission (KIP) to implement the law and resolve
public information disputes through mediation and non-litigation adjudication. Public
Information Disputes may arise when there is a disagreement between a Public Body and a
Public Information Applicant concerning the right to obtain and/or use Public Information based
on statutory regulations. The Information Commission has the authority to consider the
applicant's claim and identify the information at hand, determining whether it is open or
excluded. Excluded information includes, but is not limited to, information that obstructs the
law enforcement process, undermines intellectual property rights, or conveys Indonesia's
natural wealth. In some cases, the Information Commission may grant an applicant's request for
excluded information, but this decision can be overturned in the PTUN, as seen in Decision
Number: 17/G/KI/2020/PTUN.PTK. For instance, Audit Result Reports are considered
confidential and may not be disclosed to the public, according to Article 23 paragraph (2) of
Government Regulation Number 12 of 2017.
2. Analysis: The dispute between Irwan Sudianto and the Sambas Regency Government over exam
results was won by Sudianto at the West Kalimantan Information Commission. However, the
government challenged the decision at the State Administrative Court, which has the authority
to adjudicate disputes between State Public Bodies and information applicants. The court
granted the lawsuit from the Sambas Regency Government and canceled the previous decision
of the Information Commission. The court's decision was based on several considerations,
including the principle of "point d'interet, point d'action," which means that there is no interest,
there is no lawsuit. The court also looked at the Regulation of the Supreme Court of the Republic
of Indonesia Number 2 of 2011 and Law Number 14 of 2008 concerning Openness of Public
Information. The court considered Article 17 of Law Number 14 of 2008, which states that every
Public Body is obliged to open access for every public information applicant to obtain public
information. However, the court also noted that Article 23 of Government Regulation Number
12 of 2017 states that every result of supervision by APIP is confidential and must not be
disclosed to the public. Based on these considerations, the court concluded that the Objection
Petition submitted by the Sambas Regency Government was within the time limit and formally
acceptable. The court also assessed that the information requested by the information applicant
included confidential information that should not be disclosed to the public. Therefore, the
court decided that the decision of the West Kalimantan Information Commission was incorrect
and must be cancelled, as the information requested was exempt information according to
Government Regulation Number 12 of 2017.
3. Implication of the Decision: Implication can mean consequence, then if it is related to the
language context, legal implication means the legal consequences that will occur based on a
legal event that occurs. In this case, it is related to the legal implications of the case at the State
Administrative Court Number 17/G/KI/2020/PTUN.Ptk, based on the decision by the panel of
judges that the petition submitted by the Objector Petitioner was declared accepted and
canceled the previous decision. The ruling of the State Administrative Court Number
17/G/KI/2020/PTUN.Ptk is as follows:
a) Receiving the Petitioner's Application for Objection/former Respondent Information from
the Regent of Sambas;
b) Cancel the Decision of the West Kalimantan Information Commission Number:
010/XII/KIKALBAR-PS-M-A/2019 dated 1 July 2020;
c) Sentencing the Respondent Objections/formerly the Information Applicant to pay court
costs amounting to Rp. 286,000,- (Two Hundred and Eight Twenty-Six Thousand Rupiah).
Thus, after a comprehensive decision has been delivered, the public information dispute that
occurred between the Information Applicant and the Information Respondent is declared
resolved, and with the passing of the decision, the parties involved in the state administration
dispute are obliged to comply with the decision, because the decision has been decided in the
Court. State Administration is binding on the parties and is final and has permanent legal force.
The implication of this decision is that it requires the Objector/Information Respondent not to
provide the requested information, namely the Audit Result Report (LHP). as regulated in Article
23 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation Number 12 of 2017 concerning Development and
Supervision of Regional Government Implementation, states that Audit Result Reports are
confidential, may not be disclosed to the public and may not be provided to the public unless
otherwise determined in accordance with the provisions of statutory regulations. invitation. As
well as requiring the Objected Respondent to accept punishment in the form of administrative
sanctions, namely paying all court costs incurred during the trial related to the resolution of the
dispute in accordance with the provisions of Article 110 of Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning
the Second Amendment to Law Number 9 of 2004 and the Law Number 5 of 1986 concerning
State Administrative Courts for case costs arising as a result of a decision must be borne by the
Respondent Objector/formerly the Information Petitioner in the amount as stated in the
Decision Letter.