The Court declared two death convicts’ petition concerning Act Number 22 Year 2002 of Clemency void because both Applicants Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan had been executed. The Court also declared four students’ petition inadmissible because all the students had no legal standing. Moreover, the Court declared IMPARSIAL’s petition inadmissible because Applicant’s arguments had no legal ground.                                                                           

Deputy Chief Anwar Usman delivered court verdict number 56/PUU-XIII/2015 on Thursday (10/12), in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. “Judicial verdict. Adjudicates and declares reject Applicant I (IMPARSIAL)’s petition; Applicant II’s, Applicant III’s, Applicant IV’s and Applicant V’s (Rangga Sujud Widigda, Anbar Jayadi, Luthfi Sahputra, dan Haris Azhar) petition inadmissible,” said Usman who led the session.

The Court argued death convicts’ petition annulled due to the loss of legal subject, in this case the convicts as Applicants. However, the other five Applicants still able to file petition a quo with some revisions.

The Court assessed the students had no constitutional loss as required in Article 51 (1) Act of the Constitutional Court and its elucidation, because Article 11 (1) and (2) Act of Clemency are closely related with parties who filed clemency. Considering the students as individual Applicants didn’t file clemency, the Court concluded they didn’t suffer constitutional loss and potential loss.

As known, the Applicants considered detrimental by Article 11 (1) and (2) Act of Clemency because the Articles didn’t explicitly mandate President to reasonably consider clemency request filed to him.

Clemency Consideration

Moreover, the Court assessed IMPARSIAL as community-sponsored organization (LSM) had legal standing to file petition a quo because they represented people’s interest, including convicts who entitled to file clemency.

However, the Court adjudicated IMPARSIAL’s arguments had no legal ground because the problem didn’t related to norm constitutionality of Article 11 (1) and (2) Act of Clemency.

According to the Court, Article 11 (1) contains mandate to President to decide clemency request, whether he grants or doesn’t grant clemency request. Moreover, the Court added, there are two forms of consideration towards clemency in the Article, which are President’s and the Supreme Court’s considerations.

The Court argued the Article clearly mandates President to conduct reasonable consideration. According to the Court, the term ‘consideration’ had contained the meaning of ‘reasonable’. A consideration, the Court added, is indeed undertaken by reasonable thinking process.

The Court argued unreasonable consideration towards clemency request will be regarded as violation under Article 11 (1) Act of Clemency. In other words, if President didn’t reasonably consider clemency request, it will be regarded as a form of norm violation, instead of norm unconstitutionality of Article 11 (1) and (2) Act a quo. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)