Verdict announcement session on Case 137/PUU-XII/2014 of the Constitutional Court, Tuesday (24/3) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Kontitusi –MK) rejected judicial review petition on Act No 24 Year 2003 of The Constitutional Court which regulates provision that an individual who able to be Applicant is Indonesian citizen. Thus, the Applicant on behalf of Agbasi Chika, a Nigeria citizen, had no legal standing to file judicial review petition on Acts towards the 1945 Constitution. The Court on Its consideration assessed the Applicant as a foreigner didn’t met qualification as stipulated on the provision of Article 51 (1) letter a Act of the Constitutional Court (Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi –UU MK) and its explanation. Therefore, the Applicant as a foreigner had no legal standing on the case filed by her. Due to no legal standing for her to file petition, all of basic propositions on her petition weren’t considered entirely.

Besides rejecting the petition filed by a foreigner, this session verdict was also cancelled out the Applicant’s Attorney petition. Although they are Indonesian citizens (Warga Negara Indonesia –WNI), the Applicant Didit Wijayanto Wijaya, Antonius Sujata, Ahmad Murad, Erdiana, Ristan Simbolon, Hanung Hudiono, dan Iqbal Arif Maulana were considered had no legal standing that had been impaired explicitly with enactment of Act a quo, based on Verdict No. 10/PUU-VIII/2010 dated December 15, 2010.

“Declaring the Applicant’s petition cannot be accepted,” said Deputy Chief Anwar Usman who led the session.

As previously reported, a Nigeria citizen Agbasi Chika who entangled on money laundering criminal case (Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang –TPPU) and narcotics smuggling felt detrimental because no legal attempt for her to pursue justice. She insisted she cannot charge with criminal sanction because no narcotics evidence as attached on the ruling of the district court and Applicant Cassation. Accusation of storing narcotics accused to the Applicant was just a fiction, assumptions, and it cannot be stated as evidence. She felt she clearly was not legally protected, and it was contrary to the 1945 Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 –UUD 1945). (Julie/Prasetyo Adi N.)