---

State administrative law expert Aidul Fitriciada Azhar delivers testimony as Applicant’s Expert at judicial review session on Act of Clemenc7, on Thursday (22/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Death convict Suud Rusli summons expert and witnesses at the fifth session of Case Number 107/PUU-XIII/2015, on Thursday (22/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. State administrative law expert Aidul Fitriciada Azhari as Applicant’s Expert argues that clemency filing time-limit ignores law and justice objectives. Meanwhile, Applicant’s Witnesses also argue that regulation on clemency filing time-limit has harmed death convicts, including the Applicant. As known, Suud Rusli as the Applicant sues Act Number 5 Year 2010 of Amendment on Act Number 22 Year 2002 of Clemency (Undang-Undang Grasi).

In front of Justice Panel, Azhari delivers that there are two basic provisions in clemency granting. The first is Article 14 (1) the 1945 Constitution stating “The President grants clemency and rehabilitation under Supreme Court’s consideration” (“Presiden memberi grasi dan rehabilitasi dengan memperhatikan pertimbangan Mahkamah Agung”). The second is Article 14 (2) the 1945 Constitution stating “The President grants amnesty and abolition under the House of Representatives’ consideration” (“Presiden memberi amnesti dan abolisi dengan memperhatikan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat”). According to Azhari, both provisions shall be understood systematically.

He further says, both provisions mean that clemency and rehabilitation granting are for law and justice, while amnesty and abolition granting are for national politics. “Based on the understanding, the President’s authority to grant clemency shall be based on law and justice, instead of on other interests or reduced into administrative interest,” said Azhari in front of Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman.

Azhari also argues that limitation on the basis of clemency settlement time has ignored law and justice. Whereas according to him, Article 14 (1) the 1945 Constitution doesn’t provide limitation on clemency granting, except that clemency shall be based on the Supreme Court’s consideration. Thus, Azhari concludes that the provision which regulates clemency request may be filed within one year since the date of binding verdict, is indeed contrary to Article 14 (1) the 1945 Constitution.

“Thus, the change in Article 7 (2) Act of Clemency shall be returned to the norms and philosophical substance of President’s authority as stipulated in Article 14 (1) the 1945 Constitution,” said Azhari.

Azhari’s statements are similar with Ramdan Effendi’s testimony, or famously known as Anton Medan. The Applicant summons Anton Medan as Applicant’s Witness. As an ex-convict, Anton claims he understand the condition of death convicts. According to Anton, death convicts have no legal certainty because they are not given the clarity of their execution. Moreover, Anton says that one of his friends passed away in prison after serving sentence for 46 years.

“Such condition not only tortures the convicts, but also tortures convicts’ wife, children, and family. They cannot communicate with outside world. For example, Rusli (the Applicant, ed.) cannot communicate with people outside the prison for three years. Why clemency filing is limited for one year, then,” said Anton who recently known as religious preacher.

Responding Anton’s testimony, Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar asks about waiting time on binding verdict. “How many years Mr. Anton knows court decision grants permanent binding?” asked Patrialis

Anton reveals that he has been waiting for more than 10 years for cessation verdict. “Ten years, Your Honor. It is excluding the clemency,” said him.

Other Applicant’s Witness Gen. Mayor. Saurip Kadi also delivers testimony that strengthens Applicant’s arguments. Kadi delivers that the order is the supreme law for soldiers. When superior commander ordered the killing, it will be understood as killing for the sake of humanity and law. According to Kadi, this condition is happened to the Applicant; committing killing as soldier who ordered by his superior. Kadi assesses that his superior shall also be sentenced if the Applicant considered wrong.

“This republic (the Republic of Indonesia, ed.) is too cruel, Your Honor. How could subordinate soldier imprisoned due to carrying out his duty? A soldier able to be imprisoned under his own fault or he abuse power when carrying out his duty. How could a corporal imprisoned under human rights violation? His imprisonment shall be applied to high-rank officers, Your Honor,” said Kadi.

Before closing the session, Deputy Chief Anwar Usman says that further session of this case will be held on November 2, 2015 at 2 p.m. with agenda hearing the House of Representatives’ (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat –DPR) and Applicant’s Expert’ testimony. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---