---

William Aditya Sarana as principal petitioner after reading his petition in the judicial review hearing of the Terrorism Eradication Law, Wednesday (11/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 5/2018 on the Amendment to Law No. 15/2003 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1/2002 on Combating Terrorism Crime into Law (Terrorism Law) on Wednesday (11/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

The case registered as No. 55/PUU-XVI/2018 was petitioned by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak (Petitioner I) and William Aditya Sarana (Petitioner II) who are Law Faculty Students of University of Indonesia. They claimed that Article 1 number 1; Article 43A paragraph (3) letter b; Section Three; Article 43C paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4); Article 43F letter c; Article 43G letter a (Terrorism Act) are contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

William as Petitioner I who is a nationalist Christian who often speaks of the words of God in several communions views that the a quo law limits one’s freedom to exercise their faith as a whole because it does not provide the definition of ‘radical’ and does not explicitly declare terrorism as contradictory to Pancasila. Petitioner II, in addition to his role as a student, is also a legislative candidate for Jakarta Regional Legislative Council (DPRD) from the Indonesian Solidarity Party. So he has an interest in fighting for the political interests of party members, society, nation, and state. 

"Because the constitutional impairment that was explained was clearly experienced by the Petitioners, they have the legal standing as Petitioners in the judicial review of the law in the a quo case," William explained before the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat in the presence of Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and I Dewa Gede Palguna. 

Leonard added that the Terrorism Law sees radicalism as a negative paradigm in relation to terrorism, because it contains the terms antiradicalism and de-radicalization. However, it does not provide a definition of the term radical itself. "Due to the absence of a clear definition of [the word] radical in the a quo law, there is legal uncertainty, so it is contradictory to Article 28D of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia," he stressed. 

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Panel of Justices declare Article 1 number 2 of the Terrorism Law conditionally constitutional to the 1945Constitution of the State of the Republic of Indonesia, or constitutional as long as interpreted as "Terrorism is an action that contradicts Pancasila, uses violence or threat of violence that creates an atmosphere of terror or widespread fear, which can lead to mass casualties and/or cause damage or destruction of strategic essential objects, environment, public facilities, or international facilities, with ideological, political, or security motives."

Constitutional Losses 

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna conveyed the need for the Petitioners to state the content of the articles being reviewed. "Before elaborating the legal standing and prior to [elaborating] Article 51, it is necessary to include the content of the article in order to more easily find the connection between the article being reviewed and the constitutional impairment described by the Petitioners," he Palguna. 

In addition, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra observed the need for the Petitioners to give a more in-depth explanation in relation to their legal standing related to the impairment of constitutional rights, both factual and potential for the Petitioners. "Therefore, a specific elaboration that shows the causal verband between the constitutional impairment being argued with the petitioned article should be well described," he explained. 

Next, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat requested that Petitioner I, a Christian Nationalist, to elaborate in the petition the difficulties experienced, both factual and potential, which resulted in the violation of his constitutional rights. Before concluding the hearing, Justice Arief reminded the Petitioners to revise the petition and submit it not later than Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 10.00 a.m. to the Court\'s Registrar. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---