Petitioner\'s attorney Bonni Alim Hidayat in the petition revision hearing of the judicial review petition of the Criminal Code (KUHP), Wednesday (31/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing of the petition filed by Century Bank convict Robert Tantular. The Petition No. 84/PUU-XVI/2018 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 hearing scheduled for petition revision was held by the Constitutional Court on Wednesday afternoon (31/10). 

Attorney of the Petitioner, Bonni Alim Hidayat, explained that he improvements had been made in accordance with the advice of the panel of justices of the Constitutional Court at the previous hearing. The Petitioner improved the legal standing and explained that he was a victim of the enactment of Article 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Articles 12 and 65 of the Criminal Code. The Petitioner was charged with four different verdicts for his criminal case. "The four verdicts were accumulated," explained Bonni.

Regarding the reasons for the petition, Bonni said the a quo article could be interpreted in various ways. This causes legal uncertainty to arise.

The Petitioner had requested formal and material review of Article 272 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) and Articles 12 and 65 of the Criminal Code (KUHP). 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. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Court revoke the enactment of both articles. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)