Legal Rumors Behind the Polemic of the SKD CPNS Threshold in 2018
Pojok Pos. this principle is known as the principle of legality. However, it should be noted that in the implementation there are exceptions to this principle, especially for special conditions. An example is the crime of humanity in the past or in the Terrorism Act.
Back to the context of the current events, the claimants of the revision of Permenpan 37/2018 wanted to change the stipulated provisions and had an impact on most of the SKD CPNS participants. The impact caused by this regulation means that there have been legal events, namely there have been participants who passed the threshold and participants who did not pass the threshold. With the making of the petition containing the claim, it means that the revised claim indirectly wants the events of this law to change.
The potential for changes in legal events can be a new polemic if stakeholders take the policy to change the rules that have been set by themselves without carefully weighing the legal interests of participants who have passed the passing grade. Certainly it will not be fair for participants who have passed the passing grade if in the end the percentage of opportunities for graduation decreases with the inclusion of participants who have clearly been declared not to pass the current system / regulation.
Besides that, it needs to be realized together that the stipulation of the rules for escaping through Permenpan 37/2018 is the result of the applicable provisions which means that by registering for CPNS recruitment, all participants have agreed on all the terms and conditions set by the competent authorities, including regarding threshold provisions. It would be unethical and awkward if after knowing the results and apparently not in accordance with the wishes, the new participants raised objections and changes to the rules of the game. This can lead to new debates that have the potential to not end, namely when using the logic of a contrario (the situation is reversed) will the claimants of the revised petition still sue to change this provision?
One thing is certain, I think the debate about the sense of justice and legal certainty will continue to emerge as a consequence if there is a change in the a quo regulation. However, I also do not deny that the fact is there are other problems that arise when there is no policy adaptation (discretion) to the problems that occur at this time. These problems are related to other legal objectives (other than justice and certainty), namely related benefits.
The problem related to the main benefits in my opinion at this time is about the results of budgeting the state budget for the recruitment costs of CPNS that are threatened far from initial expectations. This also relates to the capacity of CPNS applicants who actually have competence (have high SKD scores) and only stumble by one or two TKP points so it would be a shame if these participants were not absorbed in the CPNS recruitment this time. Even in extreme cases, especially the implementation of SKD CPNS in some areas there is a 0% graduation rate for several open formations. Of course, for extreme cases like this, in my opinion there is an urgency that cannot be ruled out so that it needs a special approach from stakeholders.
Now the ball is at Kemenpan as a policy maker whether to stick to regulations that have legal impact in order to maintain a sense of justice and legal certainty, or to make changes to the provisions of breakouts to pursue the purpose of legal expediency. I am sure whatever the decision of Kemenpan certainly will not only rely on the idea that recruitment of employees is only to meet the needs of formation alone, but far from that is our goal with the reformation of Indonesian bureaucracy which starts from the recruitment of prospective bureaucrats.
Back to the context of the current events, the claimants of the revision of Permenpan 37/2018 wanted to change the stipulated provisions and had an impact on most of the SKD CPNS participants. The impact caused by this regulation means that there have been legal events, namely there have been participants who passed the threshold and participants who did not pass the threshold. With the making of the petition containing the claim, it means that the revised claim indirectly wants the events of this law to change.
The potential for changes in legal events can be a new polemic if stakeholders take the policy to change the rules that have been set by themselves without carefully weighing the legal interests of participants who have passed the passing grade. Certainly it will not be fair for participants who have passed the passing grade if in the end the percentage of opportunities for graduation decreases with the inclusion of participants who have clearly been declared not to pass the current system / regulation.
Besides that, it needs to be realized together that the stipulation of the rules for escaping through Permenpan 37/2018 is the result of the applicable provisions which means that by registering for CPNS recruitment, all participants have agreed on all the terms and conditions set by the competent authorities, including regarding threshold provisions. It would be unethical and awkward if after knowing the results and apparently not in accordance with the wishes, the new participants raised objections and changes to the rules of the game. This can lead to new debates that have the potential to not end, namely when using the logic of a contrario (the situation is reversed) will the claimants of the revised petition still sue to change this provision?
One thing is certain, I think the debate about the sense of justice and legal certainty will continue to emerge as a consequence if there is a change in the a quo regulation. However, I also do not deny that the fact is there are other problems that arise when there is no policy adaptation (discretion) to the problems that occur at this time. These problems are related to other legal objectives (other than justice and certainty), namely related benefits.
The problem related to the main benefits in my opinion at this time is about the results of budgeting the state budget for the recruitment costs of CPNS that are threatened far from initial expectations. This also relates to the capacity of CPNS applicants who actually have competence (have high SKD scores) and only stumble by one or two TKP points so it would be a shame if these participants were not absorbed in the CPNS recruitment this time. Even in extreme cases, especially the implementation of SKD CPNS in some areas there is a 0% graduation rate for several open formations. Of course, for extreme cases like this, in my opinion there is an urgency that cannot be ruled out so that it needs a special approach from stakeholders.
Now the ball is at Kemenpan as a policy maker whether to stick to regulations that have legal impact in order to maintain a sense of justice and legal certainty, or to make changes to the provisions of breakouts to pursue the purpose of legal expediency. I am sure whatever the decision of Kemenpan certainly will not only rely on the idea that recruitment of employees is only to meet the needs of formation alone, but far from that is our goal with the reformation of Indonesian bureaucracy which starts from the recruitment of prospective bureaucrats.
Komentar
Posting Komentar