The Petitioner’s attorney Gelar Lenggang Permada after the judicial review hearing of Law Number 35 on Narcotics, Monday (23/9) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The revision hearing of the judicial review of Law Number 35 on Narcotics was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (23/9/2019). The Petitioner of case No. 44/PUU-XVII/2019 is Andi a.k.a. Aket bin Liu Kim Liong, who requested the judicial review of Article 132 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law.

The Petitioner’s attorney Gelar Lenggang Permada conveyed to the bench led by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, “We have revised [the petition] following Your Honor’s advice in the previous session.” The revision included format and legal standing.

Another attorney for the Petitioner’s Beni Dikty Sinaga had previously explained that the Petitioner is an individual Indonesian citizen who had been charged with conspiracy without rights or against the law as an intermediary in the selling of narcotics group I based on Banten High Court Decision Number 109/PID/2018/PT BTN dated January 9, 2019 giving death penalty to the Petitioner.

The enactment of Article 132 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009, according to the Petitioner, resulted in legal injustice and uncertainty that harm the constitutional rights and authorities of the public, including the Petitioner. It cannot be denied, according to the Petitioner, that Article 132 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009 was passed by state administrators so that any attempt for or evil conspiracyto commit criminal conduct of narcotics and narcotics precursor is imposed with maximum punishment. This clearly results in legal injustice and uncertainty that harm the constitutional rights and authorities of the public, including the Petitioner.

Therefore, Beni said, the Petitioner has a legal standing in the petition for judicial review of Article 132 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009, which, according to the Petitioner, does not provide a guarantee of legal certainty. The Petitioner argue that phrase imprisonment punishment in Article 132 paragraph (1) of Law Number 35 of 2009 contradicts Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because it causes legal uncertainty. It has caused legal uncertainty for the Petitioner because of the absence of a clear interpretation of the challenged phrase in a quo article. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti