PENAL CODE TRIAL: JUSTICE THOUGH THE PETITION WAS NOT SYNCHRONIC
Image


The Petitioners of humiliation articles in Penal Code (KUHP) trial, , Risang Bima Wijaya and Bersihar Lubis, kept on considering that criminal sanction set in Article 310 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) as well as Article 311 had limited their right to raise their opinion which had been guaranteed by 1945 Constitution.

In the session held to Examine the Petition Revision which conducted on Thursday (06/05) in MKs Building, Anggara from Legal Aid Association for Press who acted as their attorney explained, as the Justices said in a session before (5/22), they had revised their petition by strengthen their argumentation and their legal standing.

However, Justices Board led by HAS Natabaya though that there were some things which should be explained by the attorney as subjects for the Justices to judge. Maruarar Siahaan found a statement in petitum which asked MK to test  Explanation of Article 316 and Article 207 but he did not find the Explanation in the petition.

“Please explain which Explanation you mean now, then we can know what you want us to see to know things you call Explanation,” Maruarar stated.

Meanwhile, another Constitutional Justice, I Dewa Gede Palguna, also questioned the unsynchronized of posita and petitum of the petition. In posita, the Petitioners explained and stated that humiliation delict was not relevance anymore to be used. It was not fix with the petition which only argued about the criminal delict of the Articles.
 
“About excessiveness (imprisonment-red) it will be a problem by confessing that, indeed, the delict was a crime, you should explore the excessiveness in the Petition,” Palguna explained.

Responding it, the attorney only explain that,in fact, the delict on the Article was a true problem. However, the attorney also confess that as set by the norm in the Article, it was a crime.

“We confess that as set by the norm, it was a crime, although it was not explain well. That is why we bring 2 positas, the Honorable Justices, although we also argued in meskipun kemudian kita permasalahkan pidana penjara yang berlebihan tadi,” M. Halim, Anggara s partner, explained.

After the Petitioners had raised enough explanation, Constitutional Justice Board approved the evidence brought by the Petitioners.Then, the petition would be brought to Constitutional Justice Plenary Meeting.

” Let the Plenary Meeting decide whether we will continue it to case examination process or not,” Natabaya ended the trial. (ardli/ Kencana Suluh Hikmah )


Friday, June 06, 2008 | 15:15 WIB 221