Government representatives in the ruling hearing of case Number 53/PUU-XVII/2019, which was pronounced by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman with the other eight justices on Thursday (28/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Hermanto.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Decision No. 53/PUU-XVII/2019  of the case petitioned by Pemuda Cinta Pancasila  (Pancasila Defender Youth) on the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 1946 on Criminal Law was read out by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman along with the other eight justices on Thursday (28/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner, represented by Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak, argued that there had been a great challenge in improving awareness of Pancasila, that is, the people who wish to replace Pancasila. 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, at present, there is no law that prohibits 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. 

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, the Court stated that The Petitioner could not clearly describe his qualification as a Petitioner because, in addition to being an Indonesian citizen, the Petitioner also claimed to represent his and future generations. "Therefore, [the Petitioner’s legal standing was unclear] in explaining his opinion regarding the loss of his constitutional rights as the Petitioner [described himself] as an individual Indonesian citizen and at the same time a representative of \'his generation and the [future] generations, \'"said Justice Palguna.

Justice Palguna added that, in accordance with the procedural law in relation to judicial review petition of laws against the 1945 Constitution, a person may not represent another person or party without a special power of attorney for that, except parents acting for the interests of their children who have not fulfilled requirements to act in law. It is different if the Petitioner had explicitly explained his qualification as only an Indonesian citizen.

"Thus, along with the Petitioner\'s qualification as Indonesian citizen and [his] claim [as a representative] of [his and future] generations, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner does not have the legal standing to act as the Petitioner in the a quo petition," said Justice Palguna. (Lulu Anjarsari)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti