Act 19/2002 about Copyright is challenged through Judicial Review to Constitutional Court (MK) on Friday (8/29) at MK Plenary Room. The application was filed by Bernard Samuel Sumaraw.

In its points, The Applicant argued that his Constitutional rights were harmed by the ruling of Article 18 verse (1) Act of Copyrights.

Article 18 verse (1) Act of Copyrights states:

Announcement of a product conducted by Government through mass media or other facilities may be done without any permission from the Copyrights holder, as long as no harm applied to the Copyrights holder, and the Copyright holder will be given proper honorarium.

 According to the Plaintiff, The Article is ambiguous. The phrase of “for national interest” is unclear and sparks an impression that State allows illegal activity of doing so.

Article 18 verse (1) of the Article, in which says “…through mass media or other facilities without any permission from the Copyrights holder” is seen to hurt Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights. The phrase is considered discriminative and conveys Government’s arbitrary. The Applicant on July, 1991, June, 1992, and August, 1993 offered a bid of social consumption to the Minister of Labor, Minister of Finance, Minister of Social and Jakarta Governor. Later, by July, 1993, letter of appealing was released, in which said there was legal dispute of Copyrights issue between Jamsostek Program to Priscard program, it was prompted by a release published on the next day in several capital papers.    

“Appeal letter from DPR dated December 19, 2000; Supreme Prosecutor dated April 10, 2001; and Human Rights National Commission dated June 2, 1998; explicitly say that Jamsostek has hurt Cpyrights Act. The Applicant as Copyrights holder of Priscard program thinks that the Government has arbitrarily hurt his Copyrights of Priscard Program, citing that Jamsostek program is a copycat to Priscard,” Bernard said.  

The Applicant ask the Panel of Justice to annul the ruling of Article 18 verse (1) Copyrights Act and to declare that Article 18 verse (1) is against 1945 Constitution, he also asks that the Government should be giving him proper honorarium in return to compensate his 20-year mill of loss, emerged by the ruling of the act.

Justice Wahidduddin adams said that Applicant legal standing is yet to clear. “I can’t figure it out yet, what you’re losing and so on. It needs to be accentuated, the similarity between Jamsostek and Priscard.” He advised. He also advised that the Act are being revised in DPR, the change of Application object may be existed. He also retained that the Applicant should also monitor legislative review. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh)