Plenary ruling hearing of judicial review of the Correctional Institution Law, Wednesday (31/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) has decided not to grant the material review of remission regulation in Law No. 12/1995 on Correctional Institution. The Decision of case No. 82/PUU-XV/2017 petitioned by Kamaluddin Harahap was read on Wednesday (31/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. "The ruling hears, rejects the petition of the Petitioners for the rest," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat. 

In his petition, the former member of the North Sumatra Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) who is a graft convict reviews the constitutionality of Article 14 paragraph (1) letters i and k and the elucidation to Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i of the Correctional Institution Law. According to the Petitioner, the articles are considered to be multi-interpretive and create legal uncertainty regarding remission. In addition, the Petitioner found that the provisions also do not expressly set limits on the procedures and conditions for the regulation of remission. 

In the consideration of the Court read by Constitutional Court Justice M. P. Sitompul, the same subject matter has been decided in Court Decision No. 54/PUU-XV/2017 dated November 7, 2017. In the ruling, the verdict rejected the Petitioners\' petition completely. Therefore, Justice Manahan continued, the constitutional problems petitioned for review are the same. Both requests that the Court interpret that the remission set forth in the a quo article may also apply to graft convicts. "Therefore, the consideration of the review of Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i of Law 12/1995 in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 54/PUU-XV/2017 mutatis-mutandis also applies to the a quo petition," Justice Manahan said. 

In addition, Justice Manahan continued, related to the Petitioner’s argument that the provisions of parole as regulated in Article 14 paragraph (1) letter k of the Correctional Institution Law created to multiple interpretations. The Court is of the opinion that the elucidation to the article has provided an understanding of what constitutes parole. Thus, the conditions to be met for parole are equal to the right to obtain remission as a right restricted by certain terms and procedures. "Although it is a right, parole cannot be given immediately, except for those who have fulfilled the requirements," Justice Manahan explained. 

Justice Manahan added that the right of inmates to acquire parole cannot be interpreted otherwise or given a different meaning than that stated in the a quo norm. If there is a different interpretation, Justice Manahan continued, such as Government Regulation No. 32/1999 that was revised by Government Regulation No. 28/2006 and Government Regulation No. 99/20012 intended to be a technical regulation in the authority of the Government to regulate further as stipulated in Article 14 paragraph (2) of Correctional Institution Law. 

"Technical issues are not constitutional issues, which is the authority of the Court. Thus, the Petitioner’s argument that Article 14 paragraph (1) letter k does not provide legal certainty is unreasonable according to law," Justice Manahan said. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)