Ruling hearing of the material review of Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Law on Wednesday (22/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed the material review petition of Law No. 1 of 1946 on the Criminal Law in case No. 33/PUU-XVIII/2020. The ruling was pronounced in a final hearing led by Chief Justice Anwar Usman on Wednesday, July 22, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom.

Also read:Husband Suspected of Treason, Wife Challenges Criminal Law 

Petition No. 33/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Nelly Rosa Yulhiana, wife of Yudi Syamhudi Suyuti. Yudi was declared a suspect by the public prosecutor for treason (makar)

The Petitioner argued that her constitutional rights had been violated by the enactment of Article 14 and Article 15 of Law No. 1 of 1946. Her husband was named a suspect by the public prosecutor based on Article 14 and Article 15 of Law No. 1 of 1946. He was threatened with a maximum prison sentence of three years and a maximum prison sentence of 2 years as stated in Article 14 and Article 15 of Law No. 1 of 1946 while in fact according to Article 14 paragraph (1), the public prosecutor may detain a suspect during the investigation, prosecution, and trial until ruling.

She also believed that the two articles put her activities as an activist at risk and unprotected by the Constitution while, in fact, as a citizen and an activist, she should not have been restricted from expressing her opinions/results of her studies/academic work because the Constitution guarantees freedom of association, assembly, and expression of thoughts both verbally and in writing. 

In its legal opinion read out by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Court states that the Petitioner could not elaborate the causality between the enactment of the articles being reviewed and her constitutional loss. The Petitioner’s ID card showed that she is a housewife and she didn’t bring any evidence to show her activism. Moreover, the Petitioner could not provide a sound argument of the contradiction between those articles and the touchstones in the 1945 Constitution. In the petition, she instead made an argument in relation to her husband’s criminal case. The Court also could not understand the Petitioner’s argument that the articles being reviewed is conditionally constitutional and not legally binding. It was difficult to assess if she had legal standing, and even if she did, her petition remained obscure.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fitri Yuliana
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/23/2020 16:19 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case where any differences occur between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.