Left to Right, Constitutional Justice Harjono, Akil Mochtar, and Muhammad Alim observing the file on the review of Law on KPK, Monday (16/11), at The Court Panel Room. (Doc. CCRI/Wiwik Budi Wasito)
Jakarta-MKOnline, The Constitutional Court (The Court) held a session to hear the improved petition for the review of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law (Perppu) Number 4 of 2009 about the amendment of Act Number 30 of 2002 about Corruption Eradication Commission (Perpu KPK), Monday (16/11), at The Court Panel Room.
Regarding the case Number 138/PUU-VII/2009, The Petitioners stated that their constitutional rights as citizens had been violated by the enactment of the law. "In this case, there is no legal certainty as mandated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of 1945 Constitution. The issuance of the Perppu by the President should have arranged only about the executive institutions and should have not been applied to all institutions including independent ones," explained Saor Siagian as one of the Petitioners.
Besides that, the Petitioner claimed that the Perpu was a form of an abuse of power and a form of despotic action. "This Perpu also violates the principle of legal certainty as it breaches the legal system," assumed Saor to the Panel Board of Justices.
In the petitum, the Petitioner demanded The Court to grant his claim entirely and announced the Perpu Number 4 of 2009 being reviewed as legally void and ordered the President to retract it.
The Panel Board of Justices responded by saying that the Perpu had a legal ground which is Article 22 of the 1945 Constitution. "However, in this review, the Petitioner used the previous version of the constitution because the Petitioner uses the explanation of Article 22 in which there is no explanation for Article 22 in the post amended version," Constitutional Justice Akil Mochtar pointed out.
The Justice elected from the Parliament branch also mentioned that The Court did not have any authority to order the President to retract the Perpu. "The President indeed issued it, but whether or not The Court is authorized to order a retractment is something that the Petitioner has to reconsider. The Petitioner had better make a renvooi or immediate correction after the session because there are still many mistakes in the file," he continued.
Responding to this, the Petitioner explained that it was in the context of quoting the explanation as a comparison whether the Perpu is in accordance or not. "The description is just for a comparison," answered Saor.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Harjono reminded the Petitioner not to focus only on his spirit in filing a judicial review. "I see the Petitioner is full of spirit yet lack of accuracy. Please pay attention to the relation between the argument and the proposition to make the file better regardless the time for improvement have been given," advised Harjono. (RNB Aji/YDJ tr.)
Thursday, November 19, 2009 | 10:56 WIB 266