---

Plenary ruling hearing of the material review of the Criminal Code (KUHP) through video conference, Wednesday (29/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The material review of the Criminal Code (KUHP) petitioned by Forkorus Yaboisembut in case No. 76/PUU-XVII/2019 was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (MK). "The verdict adjudicated, declares the Petitioners\' petition not accepted," said plenary chairman Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman along with the other constitutional justices in the ruling hearing, Wednesday (29/1/2020).

The Court was of the opinion that, after closely examining the Petitioner\'s petition, even though the Petitioner had submitted a letter referred to by the Petitioner as a "revised petition" dated December 10, 2019 received by the Registrar\'s Office on December 13, 2019, it turns out that in the "revised petition" there was no revision to the format or elaboration of the object of the petition. 

"Even, in the petition revision as intended by the Petitioner, the petition still does not contain the structure of the petition as specified, that is, the authorities of the Court, the legal standing of the Petitioner, the reasons for submitting the petition, and petitum or matters that are requested to be decided by the Court," said the Deputy Chief Constitutional Justice Aswanto, who read out legal considerations. 

According to the Court, even though in the "revised petition" there were "reasons", the part did not describe the posita as was the case for judicial review of laws against the 1945 Constitution. Likewise, the Petitioner\'s petitum also did not clearly explain what was actually requested by the Petitioner that was relevant to authorities of the Court. Therefore, the petition did not fulfill the elements or conditions for judicial review. 

"Considering based on all of the aforementioned considerations, according to the Court, the Petitioner\'s petition is unclear or vague. Because the Petitioner\'s petition is unclear or vague, the Court does not consider the authorities of the Court, the legal standing of the Petitioner, and the subject of the petition further," Justice Aswanto concluded. 

The Petitioner expressed his objection to Articles 87, 88, and 104 of the Criminal Code, which read, "’Attempt to commit an act’ exists as soon as the intent of the perpetrator has revealed itself by a commencement of the performance in the sense of Article 53;" "’Conspiracy’ exists as soon as two or more persons agree to commit a crime;" and, "The attempt undertaken with intent to deprive President or Vice President of his/her life or his/her liberty or render him/her unfit to govern shall be punished by capital punishment or life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years." 

In the petition, the Petitioner also expressed an objection to a maklumat (announcement) of the Chief of the Indonesian Republic of Papua Regional Police on the Security and Public Order, which consists prohibition against activities that can separate part and territory of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia conspiracy as regulated in Article 104, Article 106, Article 107, Article 108 in conjunction with Article 87, Article 88 of the Criminal Code. 

The Petitioner believes that the announcement to the entire Indigenous Peoples of Papua (MAP) within the Federal Republic of West Papua (NFRPB) has aggravated him, according to Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Based on the Declaration of the Restoration of Unilateral Independence of Papua in the West Papua Nation over the Netherlands’ former colonial territory of the New Guinea (Dutch Papua) in Jayapura City on October 19, 2011, the Papuan peoples have declared their independence. This was in accordance with the principle of uti possidetis juris and legal successor of state, making it legally valid as a treaty subject and has fulfilled the jus cogens norm. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---