---

Principal Applicant Jumanto accompanied with his attorney Yusril Ihza Mahendra delivered petition points at judicial review session on Act of Regional Elections (UU Pemilukada), onThursday (9/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

Candidacy prohibition due to past prosecution was again sued in the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) on Thursday afternoon (9/4) by reviewing Act No. 1 Year 2014 of Regional Elections (Undang-Undang Pemilihan Gubernur, Bupati dan Walikota –UU Pemilukada). Case No. 42/PUU-XIII/2015 filed by Jumanto and Fathor Rasyid who willing to candidate themselves at regional elections in East Java. The Applicant who were former inmates felt detrimental by the provision on Article 7 letter g and Article 45 (2) letter k UU Pemilukada, because they willing to candidate themselves as regional head.

Article 7 letter g UU Pemilukada states, “Indonesian citizens who able to be Governor and Deputy Governor, Regent and Vice Regent, Mayor and Deputy Mayor shall meet the following requirements: (g) are never sentenced to prison based on court decisions that have permanent legal force for criminal offenses punished by imprisonment of 5 (five) years or more. "

While Article 45 (2) letter k states, "Document requirements referred in paragraph (1) shall include: (k) certificate of never sentenced to prison based on court decision that has gained permanent legal force, due to criminal offense punished by imprisonment of 5 (five) years or more from the District Court whose jurisdiction covers the residence of candidates, as proof of candidates’ eligibility referred in Article 7 letter g.”

Yusril Ihza Mahendra as the Applicant’s Attorney said the Article 7 letter g and letter h seemed contradictory.

“In letter g, UU Pemilukada states ‘never subjected to prison based on court decision that has gained permanent legal force for criminal offenses subjected by imprisonment 5 years or more. The question is, is (the provision on) letter h can applied suddenly to an individual? It suddenly an individual’s vote rights deprived based on court decision that gained permanent legal force?” asked Yusril 

At the session, Yusril was also asked Judge Panel advices on whether or not addition in the Applicant’s posita (claim basis) was needed. ”Is the norm on Article 7 letter g actually consistent with our societal philosophy? Our societal philosophy teaches us to be good man, not punish us for deterrent, but for make us aware (of mistakes, red). A person is released from prison in order to be a good man, live well in community as a good citizen. That is the purpose of our societal philosophy,” explained Yusril.  

Responding the arguments stated by Applicant’s Attorney, Constitutional Judge Patrialis Akbar advised the Applicant to revise and complete the evidence. “So in the next revision session, we would directly validate the Applicant’s evidence,” said Patrialis Akbar who led the session.

Constitutional Judge Aswanto assessed provision on Article 7 letter g and h UU Pemilukada need to be further enriched with theories that could be qualified as human rights violation. “Because in the theory of criminal law, one criminal offense cannot sentence with two penalties,” added Aswanto.

Meanwhile Constitutional Judge I Dewa Gede Palguna advised the Applicant to clarify explanations referred by the Applicant specifically. Concerned with the posita, Palguna assessed it didn’t need to be added because it had already long enough. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Prasetyo Adi N.)  

---