---

Applicant’s Attorney Petrus P. Ell attends preliminary session on the Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana), on Tuesday (10/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Defendant of immoral case Robby Abbas files judicial review petition on the Criminal Procedure Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana –KUHP), on Tuesday (10/11), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. He considers his constitutional rights violated by Article 296 and Article 506 the KUHAP because the Articles only regulate criminalization for immoral services intermediary.

Article 296 the KUHP stated,

"Whoever intentionally causing or facilitating obscene acts and make it as a search or custom shall be punishable by a maximum imprisonment of one year and four months or a maximum fine of fifteen thousand rupiah". (“Barang siapa dengan sengaja menyebabkan atau memudahkan perbuatan cabul oleh orang lain dengan orang lain, dan menjadikannya sebagai pencarian atau kebiasaan, diancam dengan pidana penjara paling lama satu tahun empat bulan atau pidana denda paling banyak lima belas ribu rupiah”).

Article 296 the KUHP stated,

"Whoever taking advantage of obscene acts of woman and making it as searches, is threatened with imprisonment for a maximum of one year". (“Barang siapa menarik keuntungan dari perbuatan cabul seorang wanita dan menjadikannya sebagai pencarian, diancam dengan pidana kurungan paling lama satu tahun”.)

Applicant’s Attorney Petrus P. Ell explains that the Applicant is arrested under immoral case which involving several celebrities in Indonesia and charged under Article 256 and Article 506 the KUHP. The Applicant is sentenced by South Jakarta district court with one year four months imprisonment. However, Petrus further says, Applicant’s consumers who used celebrities services aren’t criminalized. During case proceedings in the district court, Applicant’s consumers only regarded as witness, instead of criminalized.  

“The Applicant considers treated unfair by the norms in Articles reviewed. Whereas, the Applicant only becomes an intermediary that connect between men who demand women for intercourse with the women referred. However, only the Applicant that burdens the offense, whereas the main perpetrators –in this case the consumers who demand women for intercourse transactionally and the women who give her body—get material and immaterial advantages,” said him in front of Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar.

Petrus asserts that Article 256 and Article 506 the KUHP only imposed to persons who facilitate immoral acts, whereas other parties who involved in it directly and parties who get advantages are not imposed by criminalization. Such provision, according to Petrus, doesn’t reflect customary law, religious law, or national law.

“The norm in Article reviewed is disadvantaged to the Applicant. It even potentially causes social ills in Indonesia because the law doesn’t play its role to conduct prevention by obeying commercial prostitution without any charge for prostitution perpetrators. However, the law applied is only charged to the intermediary,” explained him.

Therefore in the petition demands, the Applicant requests the Court to declare Article 256 and Article 506 the KUHP conditionally unconstitutional. “Requesting the Court to declare Article 296 the KUHP contrary to the 1945 Constitution if it isn’t interpreted as follows: Any person who deliberately commits obscene with the purpose of obtaining compensation for services, or lead to, or facilitate obscene acts for others and make it as a search or habit, is threatened with maximum imprisonment of one year and four months or penalty based on propriety (Barang siapa dengan sengaja melakukan pencabulan dengan tujuan mendapatkan imbalan jasa, atau menyebabkan, atau memudahkan perbuatan cabul oleh orang lain dan menjadikannya sebagai pencarian atau kebiasaan, diancam dengan pidana penjara paling lama satu tahun empat bulan atau pidana denda berdasarkan kepatutan), "explains Peter.

Justice’s Input

Responding the petition, Justice Panel provides revision inputs. Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar appreciates Applicant’s intention who willing to charge immoral perpetrators who commit their act by online. He advises him to elaborate petition arguments because the Applicant places the Court as positive legislator. However, the Court only authorized to change Act (negative legislator).

“One best sentence on your request is sexual abuse perpetrators shall be charged. It indeed doesn’t stated in the KUHP. Please elaborate it in order to fit with your intention. Please make a request that in accordance with the Court position as negative legislator,” explained him.

Constitutitonal Justice Wahiduddin Adams also delivers similar input. “The Court only has limited role as negative legislator. If you request the Court to declare a provision contrary to the Constitution, it will apply to the provision referred. It could be interpreted conditionally, however it indeed only able to interpret limitedly,” said him.

Justice Panel provides 14 workdays to revise petition. The next session will be held with agenda revision examination. (Lulu Anjarsari/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---