Plenary ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Terrorism Eradication Law, Wednesday (12/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court decided not to grant the judicial review of Law No. 5/2018 on the Terrorism Eradication Law. The Court was of the opinion that the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the petition. Even if they had had legal standing, the petition would have been obscure.

Petitioners Faisal Alhaq Harahap and Muhammad Raditio Jati Utomo are Islamic Students Association (HMI) activists. They filed a judicial review petition of the definition and motives of terrorism as stipulated in Article 1 number 2 of the Terrorism Eradication Law. The Petitioners 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. They added that the phrase could be used to suppress and prosecute any movement that is not terrorism. They 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.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, when reading the legal considerations, stated that the Petitioners had needed to prove that they had had losses by the enactment of the articles in question. This had been suggested by the panel of justices in the preliminary examination hearing. In terms of constitutional and/or potential constitutional loss of the Petitioners, he said, the Court did not find in the revised petition the elaboration on constitutional loss that the Petitioners would potentially face with the enactment of the provision.

"The Petitioners only described themselves as students at the University of Indonesia. The correlation between [status as] student of the University of Indonesia and the constitutionality issue of the norms in terms of the definition of terrorism contained in Article 1 number 2 of Law 5/2018 [was not explained]," he explained about case No. 73/PUU-XVI/2018.

The Petitioners, Justice Arief added, only mentioned having constitutional rights protected by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, that is, the right to obtain fair legal certainty, and Article 31 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, that is, the right to education. However, the losses that the Petitioners had experienced were not explained further. "Even if there is a loss that the Petitioners experienced, [there was no explanation about] the correlation between the loss and the enactment of the norm in Article 1 number 2 of Law 5/2018," he said while reading the decision on Wednesday (12/12).

In addition, Justice Arief added, the Petitioners had introduced themselves as activists of the Islamic Students Association, whose activities were potentially qualified as referred to in the definition of terrorism in the article under review. With regard to this statement, the Court in the preliminary hearing had asked the Petitioners to explain more clearly their involvement in said organization in the petition revision. In addition, the Constitutional Court had requested them to submit proof of membership in the organization. 

"Unfortunately, the Petitioners revised their petition without mentioning in the elaboration their legal standing that [they] were the activists of the student organization in question. There was also no convincing evidence that the Petitioners carry out activities that can be qualified as terrorism activities as stated in Article 1 number 2 of Law 5/2018," Justice Arief said. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)