The Petitioner’s attorney Beni Dikty Sinaga (left) in the ruling judicial review hearing of the Narcotics Law, Wednesday (23/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The judicial review petition of Law Number 35 of 2009 on Narcotics petitioned by drug mafia member involved with the transaction of 240 kg of meth Andi a.k.a. Aket bin Liu Kim Liong was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK). The Decision No. 44/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto on Wednesday (23/10/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner 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. Therefore, the Petitioner challenged Article 132 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law, which he deemed having 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.

In response to the petition, the Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner implicitly requested that the Court decide on the petition by relating it to the concrete case that the Petitioner faced. In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, the Court asserted that it did not have that authority.

The Court also believed that there was no legal uncertainty in Article 132 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law as it definitely refers to Article 144 of the Narcotics Law.

"With this reference being clear, the criminal sanction that the judge will apply on a criminal offense as referred to in Article 132 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law fully constitutes the authority and judgment of the judge deciding on the concrete case being tried according to the facts found in the trial. The Constitutional Court is not authorized to interfere with it," Justice Arief said.

The Petitioner’s argument that the same criminal sanction to the perpetrators of criminal acts as regulated in Article 132 paragraph (1) of the Narcotics Law as that in Article 114 of the Narcotics Law was unfair was inaccurate. The Court was of the view that from the perspective of the special function of criminal law to protect the interests of the law, it must not be forgotten that the legal interests protected by criminal law are not merely those of individuals but also those of the community and the state.

"It must also not be forgotten that the Narcotics Law, as well as the Narcotics and Psychotropic Convention, basically emphasizes the prevention of the development and spread of narcotics and psychotropic crimes. Such a function demands, among others, the threat of harsh and strict sanctions for perpetrators of crimes or criminal acts," Justice Arief said. (Lulu Anjarsari)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti