Plenary constitutional justices reading out Decision No. 94/PUU-XVI/2018 on the judicial review of Telecommunications Law on Monday (15/4/2019). Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court decided to reject the entire judicial review petition of Law No. 36 of 1999 on Telecommunications on Monday afternoon (15/4/2019). “The verdict rejects the entire petition,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman in the presence of the other eight constitutional justices on the petition No. 94/PUU-XVI/2018.

At the ruling hearing of the a quo law, the Court responded to the Petitioner\'s argument about the contradiction of Article 42 paragraph (2) of the Telecommunications Law to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which allegedly resulted in the violation of the Petitioner’s right to fair trial because he was unable to provide legal protection to suspects/defendants, in casu the Petitioner’s opposition to the charges of the public prosecutor.

Regarding the Petitioner\'s argument, based on the Court\'s consideration, there is no evidence of any contradiction between Article 42 paragraph (2) of the Telecommunications Law to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which allegedly resulted in the impairment of the Petitioner\'s right to a fair trial. Moreover, in the revised petition, the Petitioner stated that he was aware that if the public prosecutor and the panel of justices who had examined his case in the North Jakarta District Court had enforced the procedural law as intended and agreed to the his petition before the court and wanted to explore the material truth in the trial based on the evidence of conversation recording, "The Petitioner would not have had to […] to file for a judicial review before the Constitutional Court and the Constitutional Court justices would not have needed not […] examine the a quo petition," said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, who read out the Court\'s opinion.

However, according to the Petitioner, the opposite had occurred. The public prosecutor\'s response to the Petitioner\'s petition, as affirmed by the North Jakarta District Court Judges, has violated universally valid elements and has hurt the Petitioner\'s feelings.

According to the Court, the panel of judges who handled the concrete case experienced by the Petitioner has the authority of to consider whether or not the petition submitted by the Petitioner in the trial is granted. In the event that the Petitioner feels that he is not treated in accordance with his right to defend, he can take legal remedies provided in accordance with the existing procedural law.

"Thus, the inability of the public prosecutor to present evidence requested by the Petitioner, which was later argued by the Petitioner that it was approved by the panel of judges, was not a matter of norm unconstitutionality, but was rather related to [the implementation of said norm]," said Justice Arief Hidayat.

Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioner\'s argument regarding the contradiction of Article 42 paragraph (2) of the Telecommunications Law to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which resulted in the impairment of the Petitioner\'s right to a fair trial because he was unable to provide legal protection against the suspects/defendants, in casu the Petitioner, to oppose the charges of the public prosecutor is legally groundless. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)