---

Applicant Benny Setiady Rasman as Applicant presents at preliminary judicial review session on Act of Narcotics, on Thursday (20/8) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court holds preliminary judicial review session on Act Number 35 Year 2009 of Narcotics (Undang-Undang Narkotika –UU Narkotika), on Thursday afternoon (20/8) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Applicant Benny Setiady Rasman who claimed himself as entrepreneur head sues the enactment of Article 114 (2) Act of Narcotics. The petition is registered in Case Number 93/PUU-XIII/2015.

Article 114 (2) stated ‘In terms of offering for sale, selling, purchasing, receving, being transaction intermediary, exchanging, submitting, or receiving Narcotics Type I referred in paragraph (1), either in form of plants weighing more than one kilogram or more than five branches or in form of non-plant weighing more than five grams, the perpetrator shall be sentenced minimum imprisonment of six years and maximum imprisonment of 20 years and shall be sentenced a maximum fine referred in paragraph and added by one third of the fine’ (‘Dalam hal perbuatan menawarkan untuk dijual, menjual, membeli, menerima, menjadi perantara dalam jual beli, menukar, menyerahkan, atau menerima Narkotika Golongan I sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) yang dalam bentuk tanaman beratnya melebihi 1 (satu) kilogram atau melebihi 5 (lima) batang pohon atau dalam bentuk bukan tanaman beratnya 5 (lima) gram, pelaku pidana penjara paling singkat 6 (enam) tahun dan paling lama 20 (dua puluh) tahun dan dipidana denda maksimum sebagaimana dimaksud pada ayat (1) ditambah 1/3 (sepertiga)’)  

Benny argues, there are no guarantee on legal certainty, as well as no fair procedure in applying sanction in Indonesia. According to him, a clear procedure shall be applied particularly in applying death penalty to narcotics cases. Moreover, the procedure shall be noted in the Act.

The Applicant exemplifies the case occurred to Mary Jane Veloso who entangled in narcotics case. According to the Applicant, Mary Jane shall not punish with death penalty because she is not drug kingpin. The Applicant argues that there are many drugs dealer who commit drugs trafficking greater than Mary Jane and still detain the trafficking.

According to the Applicant, law enforcers or legislations shall be able to process entire offenders based on justice principle, by prioritizing the most serious offender. Benny assesses law enforcers should receive people report professionally and follow up the report in accordance with correct order.

Responding Applicant arguments, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna advises the Applicant to rearrange the petition correctly, systematically, and attached with correct identity. “You could see Constitutional Court website for figuring out the form of petition which processed in the Constitutional Court,” advised Palguna.

“Moreover regarding Constitutional Court’s authority, you shall read the 1945 Constitution and Act of the Constitutional Court. The second is regarding Applicant’s legal standing, what is your constitutional loss suffered by the enactment of Act of Narcotics? Please elaborate the reason on why you consider the Act aforementioned contrary to the 1945 Constitution,” added Palguna to the Applicant.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo examines Applicant’s petition which considered not meet either systematic requirements or substantial requirements. “For example, you experiencing a concrete case. You shall deliver the case in petition points, then deliver the substance,” said Suhartoyo.

Constitutional Justice Manahan MP Sitompul responds to unfamiliar terms used in Applicant’s petition. “Please don’t make statements (in the petition, ed) which aren’t necessarily true and sensitive,” said Manahan. (Nano Tresna Arfana/Prasetyo Adi N)

---