The Constitutional Court (MK) conducted a judicial review of Law No. 26 Year 2000 concerning Human Rights Court (the Human Rights Court Law) against the 1945 Constitution terhadap UUD 1945, on Tuesday (21/8) starting from 11.00 AM West Indonesian Time Zone in the Case No. 18/PUU-V/2007 filed by Eurico Guterres with his Attorney-in-Fact, M. Mahendradatta, S.H., M.A., M.H., PhD. The hearing was scheduled for hearing the Satements of the Government and the People's Legislative Assembly (DPR).
Whereas previously at 10.00 AM West Indonesian Time Zone, the Constitutional Court held a hearing for the Pronouncement of the Stipulation for the Revocation of case No. 13/PUU-V/2007 filed by Bambang Kristiono, the former Commander of the âTim Mawar" or the rose team who was involved in the case of missing people or the Case of the 1997-1998 Abduction and Forced Dissapearance of Activists, filed for judicial review of the same subject matter with case No. 18/PUU-V/2007, namely the judicial review of Article 43 Paragraph (2) of the Human Rights Court Law against the 1945 Constitution.
Article 43 Paragraph (2) of the law provides that: The Ad Hoc Human Rights Court as referred to in Paragraph (1) shall be formed upon the recomendation of the People's Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia based on specific events by a Presidential Decree.
Elucidation of the Article reads as follows: In the event the People's Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia recommends the extablishment of an Ad Hoc Human Rights Court, the People's Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia shall base the alleged occurence of gross human rights violations on the specific locus and tempus delicti which occured prior to the enactment of this law.
In the previous hearing with respect to case No. 13/PUU-V/2007, the Panel of Justices gave two alternatives; first, the Petitioner may revoke his petition because it is considered weak in respect of the legal standing of the petition which is based merely on a concern without any reference to constitutional impairement suffered by the Petitioner. Second, the Petitioner, Bambang Kristiono, may proceed with his case the decision on which will certainly create certain consequences to the Petitioner in case No. 18/PUU-V/2007 because he files a petition of a similar judicial review although with different weight of legal standing.
Based on the foregoing consideration, the Petitioner in case No. 13/PUU-V/2007 finally submit an application for the revocation or withdrawal of the case. In response to such application, based on the plenary consultative meeting of the Constitutional Court Justices on Thursday (26/7), the Constitutional Court was of the opinion that such application was legally grounded and was not in violation of the law.â Therefore, the application for case withdrawal must be granted,â said Constitutional Court Justice H.A.S. Natabaya when reading the Stipulation No. 13/PUU-V/2007.
Meanwhile, during the examination of case No. 18/PUU-V/2007, the Petitioner who was reperesented by his Attorney-in-Fact, A. Wirawan Adnan, stated that all decisions made by the People's Legislative Assembly (DPR) to establish an Ad Hoc Human Rights Court have been based on political interests. âThis is the matter that has caused the Petitioner to believe that the guarantee of legal protection and certainty that the Petitioner should have obtained, is in fact threatened by political intervention,â said Wirawan.
Wirawan went on to say that his side did not question the existence of the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court as provided for in the Human Rights Court Law, but rather, questioned its formation process which had involved DPR which was also considered contrary to the processes in an Integrated Criminal Justice System which negates any intervention by any institution other than judicial institutions.
Meanwhile, the Government, through the Director General of Human Rights of the Department of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia, Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, stated that the mechanism which involved another party aside from the executive to participate in establishing the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court was intended so that the governmetn would not be considered laden with interests. âAccordingly, the National Commission on Human Rights is involved by acting as the investigator and the DPR proposing the formation of the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court. The Government does not have any intention to politicize the formation of the Ad Hoc Human Rights Court,â explained Harkristuti. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 | 11:49 WIB 188