Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the ruling in the material review hearing of Emergency Law No. 12 of 1951 on Firearms, 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 judicial review petition by Indonesian Army retiree Kivlan Zen at a ruling hearing on Wednesday, July 22, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. The Petitioner argued that Article 1 paragraph (1) of Law No. 12 of 1951 on the Amendment to Ordonnantietijdelijke Bijzondere Strafbepalingen (Stbl. 1948 No.17) and Law No. 8 of 1948 (Emergency Law No. 12 of 1951) on Firearms was in violation of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In the preliminary hearing, he detailed a concrete case in which he had been arrested on May 29, 2019 on suspicion of illegal possession of firearms and bullets. In the subsequent legal process, he was charged of committing or participating in a criminal act and of being an accomplice in a crime and sentenced in case No. 1113/Pid.Sus/2019/PN Jkt.Pst on March 3, 2020. He believed the article of the Firearm Law has led to legal uncertainty and violated his constitutional rights.

He also believed that the a quo article contradicts Article 28I paragraph (2), especially relating to the discriminatory treatment he experienced relating to the verdicts on several cases related to possession of illegal firearms and bullets imposed on him. He encountered this discrimination when one of the defendants who possessed a firearm was acquitted, while he, who denied the charge, was indicted.

Reading out the Court’s legal opinion, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat stated that the Court had examined the petition in a preliminary hearing on Wednesday, May 15, 2020. Following the provision of Article 39 of the Constitutional Court Law, the justices had advised the Petitioner to revise the petition. In the petition revision hearing on June 15, 2020, the Petitioner had conveyed the revision, but the Court couldn’t find causality between the enactment of the article and the Petitioner’s constitutional damage.

The Petitioner only elaborated on a criminal case that was irrelevant to the norms petitioned for review. He also didn’t provide an argument regarding the contradiction between the article and the touchstones. “Due to this obscurity, the Court found it difficult to ascertain whether the Petitioner had legal standing in the a quo petition. Even if the Petition did, his petition is obscure,” said Justice Arief regarding the case No. 27/PUU-XVIII/2020.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Annisa Lestari
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 7/23/2020 20:52 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.