Principal Petitioner Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak being interviewed by the media after the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Criminal Law, Wednesday (9/10) in the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The second judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 1946 on Criminal Law was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (9/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing of case No. 53/PUU-XVII/2019 was presided over by Constitutional Justices I Dewa Gede Palguna, with Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Wahiduddin Adams. 

In the second hearing, Petitioner Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak conveyed the revision following the justices’ recommendation in the preliminary hearing. He had added and revised the petition in P1 to remain with Law No. 1 of 1946 and added P4 or Law No. 27 of 1999 on the amendment to the Criminal Code (KUHP). “I am still reviewing the KUHP, but the touchstone is those two laws,” said Zico before the bench. He also had quoted previous Constitutional Court rulings in the petition.

Zico had also added the constitutional damage throughout generations and the reason why the Court must recognize it. In the petitum, he requested that the Court granted the Petitioner\\'s petition in full, declare Article 107 paragraph (1) of Law Number 1 of 1945 concerning the Criminal Code unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it was not interpreted "The attempt undertaken with the intent to cause a revolution or replace Pancasila as state ideology shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of fifteen years" or an alternative petitum that states that the phrase "that causes riots in society or leads to casualties or damages" implicitly stated in Article 107 b of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and not legally binding, and order the publication of this decision in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as it should, or decide fairly and justly should the Constitutional Court has a different opinion.

In the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner argued that there was the obstacle to improving awareness of Pancasila were those who intended to replace Pancasila with other ideologies. Therefore, he challenged Article 107 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP) as amended by Law No. 1/1946 that reads, "The attempt undertaken with the intent to cause a revolution shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of fifteen years."

According to the Petitioner, there is currently no law prohibiting anyone from campaigning to replace Pancasila with any other ideology, except Marxism-Leninism. As a result, there are movements to replace Pancasila with liberalism and the caliphate. He argued that all articles on criminal sanctions are centered on regulating the spread of communism/Marxism-Leninism, even though Pancasila also faces threats of other ideologies.  

Meanwhile, in the current status quo, anyone who commits acts to replace Pancasila as state ideology cannot be convicted, as long as such actions do not result in social unrest or cause loss of life or property loss. Therefore, the a quo article in the Criminal Code does not provide fair legal protection because it does not protect Pancasila as the state foundation. In fact, the article is a crime against state security, which includes also the crime against the state ideology. The a quo article also does not meet criminal objectives if it does not protect Pancasila as the state foundation. So, based on these reasons, through the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare the article having no legal force and in conflict with the 1945 Constitution. (Utami/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti