Petitioner\'s attorneys Bonni Alim Hidayat and Widya Alawiyah delivering the main points of the judicial review petition of the Criminal Code (KUHP), Thursday (18/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The convicted Century Bank case Robert Tantular reviews the constitutionality of Law No. 8/1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Law No. 1/1946 on the Criminal Code (KUHP). The preliminary hearing of Case No. 84/PUU-XVI/2018 was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday afternoon (18/10). 

The Petitioner requested formal and material review of Article 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Articles 12 and 65 of the Criminal Code (KUHP). Bonni Alim Hidayat as attorney stated that the enactment of the articles had harmed the Petitioner. The formulation of the norm in the a quo articles do not reflect a sense of legal justice and expediency because the enactment had caused Robert Tantular to serve a criminal sentence exceeding the regulation. 

"Investigators from the National Police\'s Criminal Investigation Department (Bareskrim) deliberately filed 6 separate police reports involving the Petitioner and the P21 [was done little by little], even though all of them occurred in the same location (locus delicti) and in the same period (tempus delicti). Therefore, the Petitioner had to undergo four trials in the Central Jakarta District Court for 6 (six) years and received four different Court Decisions," he asserted in the hearing led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat. 

Bonni explained that of the four verdicts given to the Petitioner, the Petitioner should have served for only one criminal verdict, the heaviest sentence plus a third part. However, in reality all four verdicts must be carried out. Therefore, the total maximum imprisonment that the Petitioner must serve was 21 years of imprisonment and an additional 17-month subsidiary to substitute for fines. For this reason, the Petitioner requested that the Court revoke the enactment of both articles. 

Court Advice 

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo stated that the petition submitted was not effective. He considered it containing too many repetitive arguments. "You should be able to look for the essence or spirit so [the unnecessary part] can be eliminated so that [the arguments] are more related to the [section]," he said. 

Justice Suhartoyo added the Petitioner\'s petition is not directed only to the constitutional justices, but also the public. He requested that the petition be adjusted so that it could be understood by the public. 

"But you need to know, the petitions at the Constitutional Court are also immediately published on the website, so it will be read by all the people who [access] the petition. So, [this petition has] educational and socialization functions, but it prevaricates, there are too many redundant arguments," he explained. 

Meanwhile Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Aswanto viewed the petition as a matter of norm implementation. "Reflect whether you are confident to be able to convince the Court that this is a matter of norms, or constitutionality of norms, you may continue the petition. But if have you reflected and you agree with me that the articles being reviewed is a matter of implementation, you can submit a request to withdraw the petition," he explained. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)