Plenary ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), Thursday (25/6) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The petition filed by Azwarmi a.k.a. Armi, a defendant in the May 22, 2019 riot was dismissed by the Constitutional Court (MK) in the ruling hearing of Decision No. 26/PUU-XVIII/2020 on Thursday (25/6/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In the legal considerations regarding the judicial review of Law No. 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), said Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Court stated that the Petitioner could not explain specifically the causal relation between the enactment of Article 182 paragraph (4), Article 183, Article 184 paragraph (1) letters a and b of the Criminal Procedure Code and his loss as a citizen that was charged for a crime.

The Petitioner, Justice Manahan said, did not make an argument regarding the contradiction between those articles and the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner also did not explain the correlation between the constitutional damage he experienced and unconstitutionality of the norm.

"In fact, the Petitioner focused more on describing the concrete case that he experienced," Justice Manahan said in the hearing that took place in compliance with existing COVID-19 health protocols set by the Indonesian Health Ministry and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In the preliminary hearing on May 13, 2020, the Court had advised the Petitioner to revise the petition following Article 39 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. However, the petition remained unchanged that the Court could not understand the background to the petition in relation to the petitum, which requested that the articles in question be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding.

"Because of the ambiguity, the Court also found it difficult to determine whether the Petitioner had legal standing or not to act as a Petitioner in the a quo petition. Even if the Petitioner had legal standing, the Petitioner’s petition was obscure,” he explained before a hearing led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

The Petitioner had felt aggrieved because he was sentenced for being proven without right to have controlled and carried firearms or explosives illegally in violation of Article 1 paragraph (1) of the Emergency Law No. 12 of 1951 in conjunction with Article 55 paragraph (1) number 1 of the KUHAP. The Petitioner believed he was convicted not based on an indictment but based on facts proven in trial. In the indictment, the Petitioner was indicted for the possession of a 22 mm caliber Mayer with 3 22 mm caliber bullets. However, in the facts in trial, the evidence presented was a German-made Mayer with 5-7 bullets.

The Petitioner also believed that the evidence must not only be based on witnesses’ testimonies and experts’ statements for the Public Prosecutor because the evidence considered by the judge in convicting the Petitioner was obtained during the investigation process. Therefore, it must be based on witness’ statements and experts’ statements in the trial so that it doesn’t conflict with Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He also believed that in sentencing, the judge must consider witnesses’ statements and experts’ statements for the defendant, not only the two pieces of evidence from the public prosecutor. (Sri Pujianti/tir/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 6/25/2020