---

I Made Sudana as Applicant delivers petition revision on Act of the Judicial Commission via video conference, on Wednesday (2/9), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

I Made Sudana claims he has revised his petition which reviewing Act of the Judicial Commission (Undang-Undang Komisi Yudisial –UU KY), Act of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Undang-Undang Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi), Act of the Supreme Court (Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung –UU MA), Act of Judicial Authority (Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman), and Act of the Constitutional Court (Undang-Undang Mahkamah Konstitusi –UU MK). By video conference from Universitas Udayana, Sudana unaccompanied by his attorney delivers revision points in front of Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna on Wednesday (2/9). 

The Applicant is an Indonesian citizen who considers detrimental by the enactment of the oath of office regulation which stated in the Acts reviewed. He assesses the Acts could cause injustice due to the absence of religion sanctions for oath violation and the oath not in accordance with the religion of officials who sworn in.

In other words, Sudana requests the application of religion sanctions for oath violation in the Acts he sued. He also requests that the clergy who took the oath could have different religion with the officials sworn in. At last, Sudana requests the oath conducted in sacred place of officials’ religion. 

Sudana who attend the session without attorney, adds explanation on his constitutional loss as a result of oath taking provisions in the Acts reviewed. Using Article 28D (1) the 1945 Constitution, Sudana considers that he doesn’t get protection, fair legal certainty, and equal treatment before the law by the absence of such sanctions.

“I think that it is unfair if there is no religion sanction in the oath of office,” Sudana said.

Sudana also says he cancels to review Act Number 27 Year 2004 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission because the Article has been aborted by the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK). “It means that Act Number 27 Year 2004 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is aborted by itself because the Article has been aborted by the Constitutional Court,” said Sudana.

On the session, Constitutional Justice Palguna reasserts Applicant’s petition demands (petitum) because his words stated in the petitum could remove entire articles which Applicant sued. In fact, the Applicant only requests religion sanctions addition in oath of office provisions. “It is not Constitutional Court’s authority if you want to change Act norms. We only able to cross out or declare either Act norms contrary to the 1945 Constitution or not, that’s all. Act norm improvement is the authority of the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat –DPR),” asserted Palguna who accompanied by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati and Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.   

At the end of the session, Palguna says they will deliver today’s session result to Justice’s Consultative Meeting (Rapat Permusyawaratan Hakim –RPH) who will determine the continuation of Applicant’s petition registered in Case Number 94/PUU-XIII/2015. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---