The attorney of Popa Nicolae, Santi Dewi and partners introduced themselves before the verdict reading, Monday (28/2).
Jakarta, MKOnline - Popa Nicolae, Romanian-born citizen who lived in Kerobokan Bali, judged by the Court that he had no legal standing to review Act of Constitutional Court and act of Extradition. Therefore, in the verdict reading Monday 28/2/2011 his petition was not accepted.
October 19 2009, Indonesian Government accepted Bucharest Interpol letter number 9122/BCF/OMD regarding request to do search, arrest, and extradition on behalf Popa Nicolae--the petitioner. December 2 2009, petitioner arrested by Investigator Directorate II/ Recherché Criminal Department of National Police in Grand Hyatt Hotel Jakarta, base on Arrest Warrants No. SP.Kap/65/XI/2009/Dit Pol II Eksus dated December 1, 2009 (see Evidence P4).
Base on Arrest Warrants No. Pol: SP.Han/37/XII/2009/Dit II Eksus (see Evidence P-4, dated December 2 2009, the petitioner set as suspect and under arrested in state prisoners in National Police Headquarters for 20 days since December 3 2009 to December 22 2009. He was arrested because of suspicion criminal act of fraud base on red notice from Interpol no. 2009/290809 and/or the immigration abuse as though Act no. 9/1992 regarding the immigration. However, the arrest has no request for provisional arrest of the Romanian Government.
Therefore, Popa wished to review article 51 paragraph (1) letter a Act of Constitutional Court, article 34 letter b, article 35 paragraph (1), and article 39 paragraph (4) Act no 1/1979 regarding Extradition since the extending of his arrest base on Article 34 letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) Act of Extradition considered detrimental to the constitutional right of petitioner.
Article 51 paragraph (1) letter a Act of Constitutional Court mentioned “Applicants are parties who believe that their constitutional rights and/or authorities are disadvantaged by the issuance of an act and they are: a. individuals, citizens of Indonesia, b. union of customary law community, provided that it is still alive and in line with the community development and the principles of the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia as regulated by law, c. public or private legal entities or, d. state institution.”
Article 34 Act of Extradition said "The arrests which ordered on the basis of Article 25 be revoked, if: b. has been running for 30 (thirty) days unless extended by the Court at the request of the Prosecutor.” Then, article 35 paragraph (1) “the arrest duration which meant in article 34 letter b each time could be extended 30 (thirty) days.”
In the legal consideration, the Court was still refer to article 51 paragraph (1) Act of Constitutional Court as well as its explanation which clearly (expressis verbis) mention that individuals who has right apply a judicial review to 1945 Constitution only Indonesian citizen, while foreign citizen have no right.
“Conclusion, petition was not considered, the decision said petition of the petitioner was not accepted” said Mahfud MD. (Yazid/mh/YCP)
Tuesday, March 01, 2011 | 14:48 WIB 210