Panel judicial review hearing of Corruption Eradication Law (Anti-Corruption Law), Monday (19/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) once again held a follow-up session of the judicial review of Law No. 31/1999 on Corruption Eradication as amended by Law No. 20/2001 on Corruption Eradication (Anti-Corruption Law) on Monday (19/2) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The Petitioners, who are advocates, requested a judicial review of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law, Khaeruddin for case No. 7/PUU-XVI/2018 and Barisan Advokat Bersatu for case No. 8/PUU-XVI/2018. The revision hearing was chaired by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna accompanied by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo and Aswanto.

Khaeruddin as Petitioner of case No. 7/PUU-XVI/2018 delivered a number of revisions, including the addition of petitioner. The new Petitioner, Krisna Murti, also works as an advocate and Chairman of the Advocate Network of the Republic of Indonesia. In addition, the Petitioners also added sample cases other than that experienced by Frederich Yunadi. The Petitioners a similar case on Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law experienced by another advocate, Manatap Ambarita who is legal counsel of suspect of Year 2005 Budget Abuse at the Department of Settlement and Regional Infrastructure (Kimpraswil) of Mentawai District, West Sumatera. "So, we added a sample case that is also experienced by other advocates," he said.

Furthermore, Khaeruddin also explained that he also revised the petitum by stating that Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as especially advocates through ethics board of advocate first.

At the previous hearing, the Petitioner of case No. 7/PUU-XVI/2018 confirmed that the Anti-Corruption Law has no standards and is multi-interpretative. This is because there is no clear, uniform meaning on the standards of an advocate in defending clients, especially in an ongoing investigation. In addition, the a quo article restricts advocates in upholding law and justice despite having a noble intention to uphold law and justice.

Withdrawing Petition

Meanwhile, Victor Santoso Tandiasa as attorney of Petitioners of case No. 8/PUU-XVI/2018 decided to withdraw the petition due to concerns of mutatis mutandis with Case No. 7/PUU-XVI/2018. In his statement, Victor mentioned the withdrawal was done considering that based on experience, because the article filed is exactly the same as that of the Petitioner of case 7, the Court will decide the first case first, and the next one will be considered not granted.

"For the common interest of advocates all over Indonesia, we decided to withdraw the petition and turn it over to case No. 7/PUU-XVI/2018 so that the focus does not break and turn this big responsibility over to our colleagues," said Victor.