William Aditya and Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak as principal petitioners reading out the principal points of petition revision in the judicial review of the Law on Terrorism Eradication on Tuesday (24/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 15/2003 on Combating Terrorism Crime, Tuesday (24/7). In the hearing, William Aditya Sarana as Petitioner explained that he had revised the petition in accordance with the advice of the panel of justices in the previous session.

The University of Indonesia student improved the arguments of the petition by explaining that his campus was declared exposed to radicalism by the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT). According to him, the absence of explanation of the definition of \'radicalism\' in the Terrorism Law resulted in constitutional impairment for the Petitioners. "The Petitioners understand very well that their university houses individuals [involved in the radical act of terrorism], but there are radicals such as the Petitioners, which means radical in fundamental and principal sense of the word, in which the Petitioners are radical in loving heir fellow human beings according to the teachings of Christ Jesus," he asserted.

William said he could not accept the paradigm arising from the use of the terms de-radicalization and counter-deradicalization because the Petitioners do not want to be equated with terrorists. Moreover, the enactment of the a quo law with the use of the terms de-radicalization and counter-radicalization as well as BNPT’s claim that the Petitioners\' campus is exposed to radicalism is devoid of any clear definition of the word radical. In addition, William explained that the enforcement of the a quo law failed to solve the main thing that should be done in the eradication of terrorism.

Furthermore, William declared himself a nationalist who embraces Pancasila in the life of nation and state. As a Pancasila follower, the Petitioners do not want any person to commit terrorism acts or be exposed to terrorism radicalism and then hide behind the freedoms guaranteed by democracy and Pancasila. Without the explicit statement that terrorism is contradictory to Pancasila, there will still be individuals who commit acts of terrorism or be exposed to radicalism who defend themselves by using Pancasila. For the Petitioners, Pancasila is an absolute guidance in the life of the nation and the state and should not be misused by unscrupulous people who agree with, approve of, and perform terrorism acts.

"The enforcement of the a quo law does not expressly and explicitly state that terrorism is in conflict with Pancasila, does not create efficiency in combating terrorism, and does not prevent the misuse of Pancasila by terrorists," he said.

William, who is also a Christian, claimed the enactment of the a quo law creating a paradigm in society that those who are radical are terrorists, which have hindered the Petitioners in inviting others to live with the teachings of the church. That is because people are afraid they are going to be radicalized and criticizing those who are radical in their faith by saying radicals will also become terrorists.

The petition No. 55/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed 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. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)