---

Constitution Justices advised that the provisional claim demanding the Constitutional Court informed the Attorney General Office to wait for the judicial review process ended before executing should have been put in the petitum.

The Constitutional Court again held the trial concerning Act No. 2/PNPS/1964 about Death Penalty Executing Procedure Sentenced by Courts in the Area of General and Military (Act on Death Penalty Executing Procedure). The trial was scheduled to examine improvement of petition made by the Legal Counsel of Amrozi, Ali Ghufron and Imam Samudra. Three death-row inmates of Bali Bombing Case were represented by Moslem Lawyers Team, Achmad Michdan and Wirawan Adnan.   

Despite the fact that the petition had been improved, Panel Board of Constitutional Justices lead by Maruarar Siahaan still found a gap in it. Critics made by Maruarar was about the provisional demand from the legal counsel of the Petitioners. In the previous trial, the lawyers team promised to ask for a provisional demand. It was about the demand for the Constitutional Court to ask the Attorney General Office for a postponement of execution for Amrozi cs. at least after the completion of this judicial review process. 

Maruarar did not see the demand in the petitum part of the improved Petition. Instead, the Lawyers team put the provisional demand in the posita part of the Petition. “You are demanding for a provisional decision, but there is nothing about it in the petitum,” explained Maruarar. Actually, he added, the ground for the Court to decise what was requested or what was written in the petitum. “This should be improved,” ordered Maruarar.

Wirawan suddenly realized the mistake and admitted to revise the Petition on the same day. In the Constitutional Court Procedural Law, the period of Petition Improvement was only 14 days from the event of preliminary examination. Today, Wednesday (27/8), was the deadline of the period. Maruarar then suggested the Lawyers Team to make on-the-spot improvement. “The limit is until the end of today’s working hours. About at 5 o’clock.

Wirawan agreed to the suggestion. “Today, we will submit the provisional demand as the third point in the petitum.” Constitution Justice, Arsyad Sanusi, reminded that the character of the provisional demand was urgent. “Don’t put it as the third point, instead put it as the first,” he advised.

Arsyad added that the provisional demand was actually out of the main Petition. “It has got nothing to do with the Petition,” he said. Wirawan could understand that. Technically, Wirawan said that he was going to divide the petitum into two parts. First, the one related to the provisional demand for the AGO to postpone the execution. The second one was related to the petition demanding for a formal and material judicial review of the Act on Death Penalty Executing Procedure.

Even though every Constitution Justice advised to put the provisional demand in the petitum, it did not mean that the demand for execution postponement could be granted. Maruarar again emphasized that the matter would be discussed further in the Plenary Session of Constitutional Justices. The problem is that the Procedural Law in the Constitutional Court did not recognize the provisional demand or decision.

Convicts could choose

The examination was indeed still far from the substance of the Petition. It was still troubling over the provisional demand. Still, another member of the Lawyers Team, Achmad Michdan had shown his optimism that the demand would be granted by the Constitutional Court. He realized that if the Petition was granted then it would not only affect the execution of Amrozi c.s. but also the execution process of other death-row convicts.

Michdan said that if the Act was declared unconstitutional by the Court then there would be a legal void. Logically, the execution would have to wait for a new Act regulating the death penalty executing procedure. Nonetheless, Michdan said that the death penalty could still be executed without having to wait for the new Act.

Michdan demanded the Constitutional Court to leave the option to the death-row inmates. “If there is no existing rule, the inmates can choose. He can be shot to death, beheaded or take a lethal injection,” he said. 

Yet, these three kinds of execution were still considered to cause torture. Wirawan had another execution option which was considered humane that was by putting the inmate into unconscious condition by using anesthetic injection before he was executed. Still, Wirawan did not wan to talk further about the technique of this model of execution. “Let our experts explain about this, later” he said. (Ali)

Source www.hukumonline.com (27/08/08)

Photo courtesy of Constitutional Court Public Relation Doc.

---