J. J. Armstrong Sembiring delivering the petition principal points for the judicial review of the Civil Code on Wednesday (21/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

Two individual petitioners materially review the Civil Code at the Constitutional Court (MK). Haryanti Sutanto and Victorina Arif, heirs of one family, are registered as Petitioners No. 11/PUU-XVI/2018 which was held at the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Wednesday (21/2) afternoon. 

Through J. J. Amstrong Sembiring as attorney, the Petitioners argue that their constitutional rights were violated by the "Deed of Agreement and Power of Attorney, and Statement of Mutual Agreement" made by the notary which is considered to have multiple interpretations. The Petitioners, biological children of Soeprapti and Max Susanto, are legitimate heirs who are entitled to their parents’ legacy. However, Armstrong continued, there has been abuse and manipulation of the "Deed of Agreement and Power of Attorney, and Statement of Mutual Agreement" by the Petitioners’ sibling to obtain the inheritance. Such abuse, according to the Petitioners, occurred as a result of the difference of application between the "Deed of Agreement and Power of Attorney, and Statement of Mutual Agreement" and the Civil Code. 

"Thus, the absolute inheritance right is what is emphasized in this petition. The Civil Code is a law, and in this context is the right of inheritance," Amstrong Sembiring explained before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo in the presence of Constitutional Court Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Saldi Isra. 

Therefore, the Petitioners in the petitum argue that the "Deed of Agreement and Power of Attorney, and Statement of Mutual Agreement" shall not be contradictory to the Civil Code. The Petitioners consider the provision irrational and manipulative on the absolute inheritance right of the Petitioners, which of course is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (4), and Article 28I paragraph (5) of the Constitution 1945. 

Clarify Losses 

In response to the Petitioners’ petition, Constitutional Court Justice Wahiduddin Adams questioned why they left out part of the articles and paragraphs of the Civil Code that impaired the constitutional rights of the Petitioners. "The argument relies more on concrete cases, while the authority of the Constitutional Court is reviewing norms. So, it is necessary to complete the constitutional impairment with the enactment of norms," he advised. 

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra requested that the Petitioners make adjustments to the petition according to the requirements of the Constitutional Court. "Not just the legal case issue. The Petitioners suffered losses from which articles of the Civil Code? Then, the articles are reviewed against the 1945 Constitution," he explained. In addition, he also stressed the need for the Petitioners to perfect the posita, which is closely related to the petitum. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised that the Petitioner affirm the constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the norm and not prioritize the implementation chronology of the norm. "For example, Article 913 or 914 Civil Code is considered contrary to the 1945 Constitution. So, this can only be validly reviewed in the Constitutional Court. The deed is not the issue. Because if it was, the Court cannot review it," he explained. 

Before closing the session, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo reminded the Petitioners to submit the revised petition no later than Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 10.00 a.m. to the Court\'s Registrar to schedule the next session. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)