The Constitutional Court’s judicial review hearing of Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications, Thursday (14/2) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—Follow-up judicial review hearing of Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications that had been scheduled for Thursday (14/2/2019) was postponed because the expert for the Government could not attend. “Today the expert for the Government cannot attend, Your Honors. Thank you,” said Erwin Fauzi from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights representing the Government.

In respons, Chief Justice Anwar Usman offered the Government whether to submit the statement of expert Eddy Wahyudi in writing in the hearing of case No. 94/PUU-XVI/2018. “This session for case No. 94/PUU-XVI/2018 was supposed to hear the Government expert by the name of Eddy Wahyudi. Will you still present him [in person] or only in writing?” asked Justice Anwar Usman as chairman of the plenary hearing. The Government said they would submit the expert’s written statement.

The panel of justices decided to delay the session. As the next would be the last hearing, the legal counsels of the Petitioner and the Government were to submit their closing statements by Friday, February 22, 2019 at 10.00 WIB along with the written statement of the Government expert.

The a quo petition was filed by Sadikin Arifin. The Petitioner argued that his request that recorded conversations be presented before the hearing was not without basis. According to the Petitioner, the recorded evidence was crucial in proving whether or not there had been discussion on narcotics between the Petitioner and a foreign national (WNA), who were accused of carrying out a joint drug crime.  

According to the Petitioner, based on verification in the his criminal trial, there is at least the fact, among others, that a person accused along with him of committing a criminal offense of illicit narcotics distribution died from being shot by officers of the National Narcotics Agency (BNN) during an arrest, which then established the Petitioner as a single defendant in the North Jakarta District Court. 

In addition, the Petitioner\'s had given statements throughout the trial denying possession of the item and denying any communication with foreigner who had been shot by BNN officers or with anyone related to narcotics.  

He also denied the laboratory result of his urine sample that was said to show indication of narcotics or psychotropic drugs. During a search in his residence, no narcotics or related items were found. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)