Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto with Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Wahiduddin Adams in the judicial review hearing of Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication, Monday (22/4) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court held the second judicial review hearing of Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication, Monday (22/4/2019) in the Panel Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 27/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by advocates and South Jakarta Peradi administrators Octolin Hutagalung, Nuzul Wibawa, Hernoko D. Wibowo, and Andrijani Sulistiowati.

One of the attorneys Charles A.M. Hutagalung conveyed several revisions to the petition, including on the legal standing of the Petitioners, the difference between the a quo petition and previous ones, and reinforced the petitum by changing the format without reducing the substance contained therein. 

“Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Honorable Constitutional Justices declare Article 21 along the phrase “directly or indirectly” of Law No. 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding with all of its legal consequences,” Charles said before the Court led by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto, in the presence of Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra and Wahiduddin Adams.

In the previous session, the Petitioners claimed that Article 21 of the Corruption Law does not provide legal certainty and is multi-interpretive along the phrase “directly or indirectly” and is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioners claimed that law enforcement such as Police investigators, the Attorney’s Office, and the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is open to interpretation because there is no common perspective and clear standards on the act by an advocate that can be categorically said to be “directly or indirectly” [sabotaging a legal case] in defending their client.

The Petitioners also considered the implementation and meaning of “Any person” in the a quo article to have caused legal uncertainty because it does not consider the individual intended, including an advocate, and seem to silence advocates so that they only passively defend their clients. In other words, the provision has caused legal uncertainty because instead of giving an advocate their freedom to defend their client in good faith, limiting them.

Before concluding the hearing, the panel of justices confirmed the evidence submitted by the Petitioners’ attorneys. The agenda for the next session will be informed by the Registrar’s Office following the decision by the justice deliberation meeting. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)