---

Petitioner Aristides Verissimo de Sousa Mota in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Indonesian Armed Forces, 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) decided to dismiss the judicial review petition of Law No. 34 of 2004 on the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) in a ruling hearing on Wednesday, July 22, 2020. Petitioner Aristides Verissimo de Sousa Mota argued for petition No. 31/PUU-XVIII/2020  that Article 1 number 10, Article 4 paragraph (1), Article 12 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 13, Article 14 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 15, and Article 19 of the Armed Forces Law are in violation of Article 10 of the 1945 Constitution.

Also read:

Constitutionality of Armed Forces Commander Position Challenged

Petitioner of Provision on Armed Forces Commander Position Adds Articles to Review

The Petitioner had previously argued that the Armed Forces Commander has indirectly removed the President’s position as supreme commander. He illustrated that during state funeral of a former president and vice president, the ones in charge of holding the national flag at the tomb are the Army Chief of Staff, the Navy Chief of Staff, and the Air Force Chief of Staff, and the National Police Chief. 

Upon observing this, he considered the Armed Forces Commander position invalid because it contradicts Article 10 of the 1945 Constitution. So, based on the phrase ‘... the Supreme Commander of the Land Forces, the Navy, and the Air Force,’ the direct superior of the Army, Navy, and Air Force is the president and not the Commander of the Armed Forces.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams read out the Court’s legal opinion that the Petitioner had not been able to explain his actual or potential constitutional damage. He only explained his status as an Indonesian citizen who has the right to express his opinion on things that he considers unconstitutional and the roles, functions, and duties of the Armed Forces in the provision in the a quo law. The Court believes that while citizens have the right to express their opinion, they must have a legal standing to file a petition to the Court. The Court find it difficult to understand the correlation between the Petitioner’s presumed constitutional damage

The Court stated that although citizens are free to express their opinion, they must have legal standing to file a petition to the Court. Similarly, the Petitioner must elaborate on his constitutional damage in relation to the norm. However, he elaborated the provision in the a quo law in relation to the role, functions, and duties of the armed forces without its contradiction to the norm in the 1945 Constitution used as the touchstone.

In the revised petition, he still did not elaborate on specific or, at least, potential loss of constitutional rights nor did he explain the correlation between his loss and the enactment of the a quo law. The Court was of the opinion that he did not have legal standing to file the petition, so it was dismissed.

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

Translation uploaded on 7/23/2020 16:14 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.

---