Plenary judicial review hearing of the Law on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering (PPTPPU Law), Tuesday (23/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The judicial review hearing of Law No. 8/2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering (PPTPPU Law) on Tuesday (23/10) in the Constitutional Court (MK) originally scheduled to hear the statements of the President and House of Representatives, was postponed. "Excuse me, Your Honor. From Kemenkumham, we are Ninik Hariwanti, Mr. Purwoko, and Mr. Surdiyanto. We have sent a letter asking for a delay, Your Honor. [We asked for the delay] as [we] still need time to coordinate," said Ninik Hariwanti representing the Government. 

Responding to the Government\'s statement, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman as chairman of the session said, "The House is also not present. The President\'s counsel had asked for a delay. Therefore, the hearing cannot continue today. [It is] postponed [until] Monday, November 19, 2018, at 11.00 a.m. with the same agenda, namely hearing the statement of the House and the President\'s counsel." 

The petition No. 74/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by the Indonesian Anti-Money Laundering Institute (LAPI), Auriga Nusantara Foundation, Charles Simabura, Oce Madril, and Abdul Ficar Hadjar. The Petitioners, represented by legal counsel Feri Amsari, described their argument. They had requested the judicial review of Article 2 paragraph (1) letter z and the Elucidation to Article 74 of the PPTPPU Law.

One article and one elucidation of Law No. 8, according to the Petitioners, contradict the 1945 Constitution for several reasons. First, the conflict arises because in Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, it is stated that the national economy is organized on the basis of economic democracy upholding the principles of togetherness, efficiency with fairness, sustainability, environmental insight, self-sufficiency, and by keeping balance in the progress and unity of national economy. 

The Petitioner claimed that actually money laundering based on the general elucidation to Law No. 8 is a criminal act that threatens the stability and integrity of the economic and financial systems. In this context, Article 2 paragraph (1) letter z and the elucidation to Article 74 cause the efforts to eradicate money laundering to not be optimal. 

The Petitioners considered these two articles to have caused confusion and contradiction with several articles in the 1945 Constitution. According to the Petitioners, Article 2 paragraph (1) letter z of the PPTPPU Law can be said to cause legal uncertainty. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA/Yuniar Widiastuti)