Former member of North Sumatera Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) Kamaluddin Harahap as principal petitioner at the petition revision hearing of judicial review of the Law on Correctional Institution on Wednesday (15/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The judicial review of Article 14 paragraph (1) letters i and k and the elucidation to Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i of Law No. 12/1995 on Correctional Institution was held on Wednesday (15/11). The hearing of Case No. 82/PUU-XV/2017 was scheduled to hear the revision of the petition.

The Petitioner\'s attorney Muhammad Ainul Syamsu stated the revision points of the recommendations of the Panel of Justices in the previous hearing. The revision includes the inclusion of articles and paragraphs being reviewed, as well as the point of reference. "We made a revision, on the petition revision for judicial review of Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i, letter k, and paragraph (2) of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 12 of 1995," he explained in the session led by Constitutional Court Manahan M.P. Sitompul.

Furthermore, Ainul added that the evidence that the Petitioner is a convict of graft case. "There we say state that the Petitioner is an Indonesian citizen and a prisoner for a corruption case," he said.

Related to the argumentation of the petition, the Petitioner explained that the material judicial review requested is a matter of the constitutionality of norms, not the implementation of the norms. "Also, the phrase \'with all the legal consequences\' in our petitum has been removed, because this was not described in the posita so that obscuur libel wouldn’t occur," he explained.

Kamaluddin Harahap is a former member of the North Sumatra DPRD who was convicted in a corruption case. In his petition, the Petitioner claims that Article 14 paragraph (1) letters i and k and the elucidation to Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i of Correctional Institution Law is multi-interpretive and causing legal uncertainty related to remission. In addition, the provisions do not expressly set limits on the procedures and requirements of remission regulation. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)