Petition revision hearing of the judicial review hearing of the Pilkada Law, Monday (7/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court once again held the judicial hearing of Law Number 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015 on the Implementation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Laws (Pilkada Law) on Monday (7/1) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing of Case Number 99/PUU-XVI/2018 petitioned by Ahmad Wazir Noviadi was presided over by Constitutional Justice Manahan M.P. Sitompul, in the presence of Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat and Saldi Isra.

Through Refly Harun as one of the attorneys, the Petitioner submitted revisions of the petition, including an explanation of the article being reviewed and the petitum. In the initial petition, the Petitioner argued that Article 7 paragraph (2) letter i of the Pilkada Law potentially harmed his constitutional rights. However, in this session, he emphasized the phrase "narcotics users" in the article and argued that it was contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not have binding legal force. 

"Therefore, the Petitioner submitted an alternative petitum, \'narcotics users\' must be interpreted as currently using it, not someone who is currently no longer using it. The next alternative, even if narcotics use is interpreted as [someone who has ever used narcotics], it does not apply conditionally unconditional to those who have been rehabilitated or no longer use narcotics as evidenced by a statement from a doctor. Or even if \'narcotics users\' is interpreted also as those who have used and have been rehabilitated, but at least those concerned can still register with a declaration, just as in a previous Constitutional Court decision related to those who have committed a criminal offense with 5 years imprisonment or more," Refly explained in the presence of the Petitioner. 

In the previous session, the former Ogan Ilir Regent argued that based on the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs No. 131.16-463 of 2016 on the Appointment of Regent of Ogan Ilir, South Sumatra dated February 11, 2016, he had been inaugurated and sworn in on February 17, 2016. However, on March 18, 2018 he was dismissed. He was permanently dismissed based on the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs Number 131.16-3030 of 2016 dated March 21, 2016 because he was a suspect of narcotics abuse. Then, based on the verdict of the Palembang District Court, the Petitioner underwent rehabilitation for six months. Since March 18 to September 13, 2016 he underwent medical and social rehabilitation at the Narcotics Rehabilitation Center of the National Narcotics Agency in Lido, Bogor, West Java and at Ernaldi Bahar Hospital Palembang, South Sumatra. 

The Petitioner wishes to run for the 2021-2026 election, but was kept from it due to the enactment of the norm. Therefore, through the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 7 paragraph (2) letter i of the Pilkada Law contradictory to the 1945 Constitution interpreted as "never committed a disgraceful act, except for narcotics abusers who have been declared cured, and openly and honestly revealed to the public that they had been convicted narcotics abuse." 

Before concluding the session, Justice Manahan authenticated the evidence submitted by the Petitioner. He then requested that the Petitioner wait for the result of the Justices Deliberation Meeting that would be informed by the Registrar’s Office of the Court. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)