Petitionersâ counsel M. Farhat Abbas, S.H., M.H. in the decision reading session for the Judicial Review of Act No. 7 of 1974 on Control on Gambling (Article 1, Article 2, Article 3, Article 4 and Article 5) and the review of Book of Criminal Codes [Article 303 paragraph (1), (2) and (3); Article 303 bis paragraph (1) and (2)]. The Constitutional Court in the verdict decided to reject the entire petitions on Wednesday (6/4) in the Plenary Courtroom.
Jakarta, MKOnline - Prohibition on gambling did not cause a limitation and did not block people’s right to develop themselves, rights to a job, rights not to be free from discriminative treatments also rights to equal treatment before the law. “Because, according to the accepted value in the people, gambling is not a good deed,” that was emphasized by the Constitutional Court (The Court) in their decision No. 21/PUU-VIII/2010 read on Wednesday (6/4) afternoon, in The Court’s Plenary Courtroom. This statement was announced after examining the Act on Control on Gambling and the Book of Criminal Codes (KUHP).
The Petitioner in the review were a labor, Suyud and Liem Dat Kui, an entrepreneur. In their petition, they saw that the Act had been discriminative because gambling was people’s habitual game. Not only that, according to them, gambling was useful for the people as it gave a major contribution in increasing State’s income through taxes. Therefore, they sought to review Article 303 paragraph (1), (2), and (3) of the Book of Criminal Codes; Article 303 bis paragraph (1) and (2) of the Book of Criminal Codes; also Article 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Act on Control on Gambling.
Still, The Court had a different view that even though gambling had been practiced for a long time by many ethnics in Indonesia, it was considered not a good deeds according to people’s values. In this case, The Court agreed to the government and the House of Representatives (DPR) which stated that the prohibition or criminalization on gambling was done with sole intention of public interests based on moral consideration, religious, security and general order values.
“Therefore, according to The Court, the articles of the Act brought for a review does not breach the principle of people’s freedom to practice their religions and freedom to preserve and develop their cultural values therefore it does not violate the Constitution,” announced one of the constitutional justice while reading the decision.
Further, The Court also disagreed to the arguments of the Petitioners stating that the turnover from gambling was high and useful for the State. According to The Court, even though the State needed huge financial budget, that did not necessarily meant in order to get meet the budget, the government had to take all means including legalizing gambling. Therefore, according to The Court, the Petitioners’ arguments were legally unreasonable.
Meanwhile, on the Petitioners’ argument which questioned the issuance of licence for gambling in Indonesia, according to The Court, it was not their authority to review and considered those values. Therefore in the verdict, The Court rejected the entire petition. “Petitioners’ arguments in the main petition are not proven legally,” announce the Chief Justice of The Court, Mahfud MD. (Dodi/mh/YDJ)
Wednesday, April 06, 2011 | 18:37 WIB 261