---

Applicant Nuih Herpiandi delivered petition points in preliminary session of Case No. 72/PUU-XIV/2016 concerning the Criminal Code, on Thursday (15/9), in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (MK) held preliminary session of Article 385 and 432 the Criminal Code (KUHP), on Thursday (15/9). The petition of Case No. 72/PUU-XIV/2016 was filed by paper businessman Nuih Herpiandi.

Unaccompanied by his Attorney, Nuih delivered petition arguments. He claimed that his business was harmed by obscure interpretation of Article 385 and 432 the Criminal Code. He argued that he has taken over PT Durman Kertas Indah owned by Indra Wijaya in February 8, 2001. The business was taken over because it was at the brink of financial crisis.

However, after the products of PT Durman Kertas Indah sold massively, the old owner willing to control the market by stopping products delivery to the Applicant without valid legal reason and opening own branch in Cirebon.

According to the Applicant, the definition of Article 385 the Criminal Code should be extended to include market share grabbing. He argued that market share is a form of intangible commodity that has high economy value.

“I want to seek justice because there is no place to complain about Articles which regulate market share,” said him in front of Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

Thus, he requested the Court to extend interpretation of Article 385 the Criminal Code by adding the phrase “market share” (“pangsa pasar”) in the Article. He also requested that Article 423 the Criminal Code is interpreted “Those who referred as officials are public official and private company official” (“yang  dimaksud pejabat adalah pejabat publik juga swasta”).

Justice Panel Input

Responding Applicant’s petition, Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar assessed the petition is more appropriate to filed to general courts because it contains material loss issue which the Court has no jurisdiction on it. “You may stated about material loss, but the issue of material loss cannot be used as purpose of the petition. It is just for starting point,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo argued the Articles reviewed were not problematic. He argued that Applicant’s concern will be more appropriate if it is filed to the House of Representatives. As known, the House recently formulated about amendment of the Code. “The Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction on amending Article that is considered fine and not problematic,” he asserted. (ars/lul/pan)

---