The Applicant’s Attorney Robert Paruhum  interviewed by the media after judicial review verdict session on Act of the Supreme Court, Thursday (19/3) at the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR / Ganie.

Act No. 5 Year 2004 of Amendment of Act No.14 Year 1985 of the Supreme Court (Undang-Undang No. 5 tahun 2004 tentang Perubahan Atas UU No 14 tahun 1985 tentang Mahkamah Agung) that regulates the provision of  appeal restriction is still declared valid and not contrary to the constitution after the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) decides to reject the petition of judicial review on Article 45A (2) letter b Act of the Supreme Court filed by the Applicant Dwi Hertanty.

The Constitutional Court on its verdict declared on Thursday afternoon (19/3) was argued that restrictions on criminal case filing to the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung –MA) were common, including conducted in several countries and not contrary to the constitution. The restrictions aim to prevent too many cases filed to be appealed and to improve verdict quality of first level and appellate courts. Moreover, the Constitutional Court was also assessed there were no discriminative treatments stipulated on Article a quo because the provision applied to all Indonesian citizens, particularly to those who sentenced criminal threats for one year imprisonment.

Further, the Court agreed with the Government’s testimony that stated each citizen in conducting their rights and freedom was didn’t mean they can do whatever they please. Other people’s rights and freedom was also a matter that must be aware of, so Article 28J (2) the 1945 Constitution affirmed that the rights and freedom’s restrictions were aim to ensure recognition and respect other rights & freedom.    

On the verdict closing, the MK was also confirmed that the constitution already regulated that all of the human rights could be limited with Acts and each individual was obliged to the restrictions in order to guarantee recognition, respect other people rights & freedom, and to fulfill the fair demand in accordance with moral, religious values, security and public order considerations in a democratic society. Thus, the Court decided to reject the Applicant’s petition because it had no legal grounds. “(the Court) Declaring to reject the Applicant’s petition,” said Arief Hidayat.    

Previously, the petition filed by Dwi Hertanty who were charged with physical violence deeds against Rahman Rezky that cause bruising on the right chest, left chest and left upper arm that made the Applicant threatened with Article 44 (4) Act No. 23 Year 2004 of Domestic Violence Eradication (Penghapusan Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga) in which the penalty is maximum 4 months of imprisonment. The Applicant has been convicted by a court in which the verdict of first level court and appellate court imposed him with 2 months criminal sanction. (Julie/Prasetyo Adi N.)