Gold trader whose 10-kilo-golds were looted, Suhaemi Zakir revised his petition of judicial review on Banking Act. Rinaldi, who represented Zakir, delivered his argument in Wednesday (11/19) Trial which held at MK Plenary Room. The Plaintiff added touchstone, accentuating his argument, and replace his petitum to obtain replacement of his looted golds.

Ahead of the Panel, Rinaldi cited that he has added touchstone to contend Article 49 verse (3) letter b of Banking Act. Earlier, he was only using Article 28D verse (2) 1945 Constitution.

In accordance to MK’s Authority in resolving a quo case. Rinaldi said that he has added several Articles which adjudicate so, namely, Article 24 verse (2) 1945 Constitution, Article 24 C verse (1) 1945 Constitution, Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a Constitutional Court Law, and Article 29 letter a Act Judicial Power.

“Based on those, The Court is deemed to resolve first and final phase to review Acts upon Constitution,” Rinaldi said.

To convince the Court that the Plaintiff has legal standing to rebut a quo case, he added legal standing as Indonesian Citizen, proven by the usage of Identity Card (KTP).

Rinaldi also delivered additional argument related to Article 49 paragraph (2) letter b BanKING Act which is argued as ambiguous. Therefore, he is certain that he is potentially being violated as DKI Bank immunity to be brought in front of law. DKI Bank was considered disrespected the decision of Central Jakarta District Court and ruling law. Albeit, Central Jakarta District Court has ordered the Bank to disburse compensation for Plaintiff’s loss.  

“The Plaintiff may not receive the compensation. Therefore, Plaintiffs is expected to have his Constitutional rights being violated by the ruling of Article 49 letter Banking Act. The Plaintiff possess legal standing in petitioning this case and gaining his constitutional rights,” Rinaldi retained.  (Yusti Nurul Agustin/kun)