Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak as Petitioner attending judicial review hearing of Law Number 5 of 2018 on the Amendment to Law Number 15 of 2003 on the Establishment of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2002 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism into Law (Terrorism Law), Tuesday (10/30) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition of the judicial review of Law No. 5/2018 on the Amendment to Law Number 15 of 2003 on the Establishment of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2002 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism into Law (Terrorism Law). "The verdict heard, rejects the Petitioners\' petition," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman, reading Decision No. 55/PUU-XVI/2018. 

The petition No. 55/PUU-XVI/2018 was filed by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak (Petitioner I) and William Aditya Sarana (Petitioner II), 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 Law) were contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners 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.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, the Court was of the opinion that the word "terrorism" is not behind the words counter-radicalization and de-radicalization in the Terrorism Law because what was meant by the legislators is clear, that is, those who are vulnerable and have been exposed to radical terrorism. Furthermore, he said that regarding the petition, the Court was of the opinion that both the words counter-radicalization and de-radicalization were explained in the General Elucidation of the Sixth Paragraph and Article 43C paragraph (1) and Article 43D paragraph (1) of Law 5/2018 (Terrorism Law). Interpreting the two terms, he added, is not enough only textually, but must also be contextually. Considering the title of the a quo law, the context referred to as the terms counter-radicalization and de-radicalization is within criminal acts of terrorism. If the word terrorism is added behind the two terms in the formulation, then the legislation will be excessive and overbodig.

"Considering based on all the considerations outlined above, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners\' petition is unreasonable according to law," Justice Saldi said in the ruling hearing on Tuesday afternoon (30/10). 

Enemy of Mankind

Terrorism is one of serious crimes that require serious measures. This is because it is a host of humanist generis or enemy of mankind. The state\'s efforts to fight terrorism are not unlike fighting criminals with unpredictable strategies. Therefore, Justice Saldi explained, it is necessary to regulate terrorism separately and specifically in the legislation, including clear, explicit definition of terrorism.

Ideology

The definition of terrorism in Article 1 point 2 of the Terrorism Law does not confirm that terrorism acts are contrary to Pancasila, but has included ideology as one of the motives or the purpose of terror acts that are contrary to Pancasila. "So, even without clear, explicit mention, acts of terror are clear and certainly contrary to the Pancasila. Besides that, Pancasila has also become a philosophical foundation for the formation of the a quo law," Justice Saldi explained.

The placement of Pancasila as a philosophical foundation of the law, he continued, is because Pancasila is a fundamental norm, so the formation and implementation of laws cannot be separated from Pancasila values. Thus, the articles in the law including the definition of terrorism in Article 1 point 2 of the Terrorism Law have been inspired by the values of Pancasila. (Sri Pujianti/LA)