Principal Petitioners Faisal Alhaq Harahap and Muhammad Raditio Jati Utomo presenting the petition revision of the judicial review of the Terrorism Eradication Law, Wednesday (26/9) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The second hearing of the judicial review of Article 1 point 2 of Law No. 5/2018 on the Terrorism Eradication Law was held by the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (26/9). The session of case No. 73/PUU-XVI/2018 heard the petition revision.

M. Raditio Jati Utomo Petitioner explained that the Petitioners had revised the petition arguments. He mentioned that the definition of terrorism in Article 1 number 2 of the a quo law was not enforced because the drafting of laws and regulations related to Article 1 number 2 of the a quo law was not in accordance with the rules of criminal law as outlined in a law.

"Whereas the definition of terrorism in Article 1 point 2 of the a quo law can create concern that a definition of the law becomes very loose. It creates a bias toward the definition of terrorism, " he said in the session chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

In addition, the Petitioners quoted a legal opinion by Yusril Ihza Mahendra in online Republika news entitled “No Long Argument Needed on the Definition of Terrorism” in 2016 in which he stated that the definition would always cause debate and that it could not include everything they would like it to describe.

"Whereas Article 1 point 2 of the a quo law is inconsistent and contradicts Article 5 of the a quo law because Article 5 of the a quo law regulates that [terrorism acts are must be] considered non-political crimes and can be extradited or requested mutual assistance as stipulated in the provisions of the law," he explained further.

The petitioners are Islamic Students Association (HMI) activists who filed a judicial review related to the definition and motives of terrorism as stipulated in Article 1 number 2 of Law No. 5/2018 on the Terrorism Eradication Law. Faisal Alhaq Harahap and Muhammad Raditio Jati Utomo as Petitioners felt that they had been harmed by the enactment of Article 1 number 2 of the Terrorism Law.

The Petitioner had stated that the definition of terrorism in Article 1 paragraph (2), especially the phrase "with ideological, political, or security disturbances" could be a tool for those in power to incriminate. He added that the phrase could be used to suppress and prosecute any action that is not terrorism.

Thes Petitioner had said that the a quo article could create a stigma that Islam preaches terrorism. In addition, he added, Islam can easily be incriminated if one day the regime in power does not like the views of Islam. He also considered the a quo article limiting efforts to eradicate terrorism because motives to commit acts of terrorism are not limited only to the definition in the a quo law, but also various other motives. (Arif/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)