Otto Cornelis Kaligis (Petitioner) reading out the petition revision virtually at the material judicial review hearing of Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i of Law No. 12 of 1995 on Correctional Institution, Wednesday (9/8/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

---

Wednesday, September 8, 2021 | 21:53 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 12 of 1995 on Correctional Institution (Correctional Law) virtually on Thursday, August 26, 2021. The petition No. 41/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Otto Cornelis (O.C.) Kaligis, a prison inmate at the Class I A Correctional Facility of Sukamiskin, Bandung.

Before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Petitioner conveyed the revisions to the petition. He revealed that he received a letter from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) dated June 16, 2020 (Evidence P-2), which kept him from obtaining remission based on the Government Regulation (PP) No. 99 of 2012. Kaligis stressed that he was not a justice collaborator.

“Therefore, in my revised petition, I would like to say that this [case] is not ne bis in idem. My petition is based on Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i on Remission, [in contrast with] Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” he added.

He also said that PP No. 99 of 2012 referred to Law No. 12 of 1995. He believes the law concerns his right in Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i of the law regarding Remission.

Also read: OC Kaligis Says Remission System Discriminatory 

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, August 26, 2021 O.C. Kaligis explained his constitutional loss. He revealed that the Directorate-General of Corrections’ (DGC) effort to apply for remission for him was hindered by PP No. 99 of 2012 on the Second Amendment to the Government Regulation No. 32 of 1999 on The Terms and Procedures for the Implementation of the Rights of Correctional Inmates. He added that he did not commit any crime but was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

“I’m not a perpetrator but I was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Supreme Court’s decision declared that I was not a perpetrator. The main perpetrator was only sentenced to 2 years. I feel a disparity, while an article in Law No. 12 of 1995 states that based on Pancasila and the Constitution, it is clear that I was treated contrary to Article 27—the principle of equality before the law. Because of that, I’m trying to seek justice in the Constitutional Court, even though in my view PP No. 99 unconstitutional, contrary to TAP MPR No. 3 of 2000 on the hierarchy of the law,” he explained.

In his petition, the Petitioner maintains that the Government, through PP No. 99 of 2012, has ignored the mandate of the legal objectives (doelmatighrechts) regarding the conceptual ideas of the corrections, which have been affirmed as the legal basis of the Correctional Law as stated in the general elucidation section, and ignored the rehabilitation and social reintegration function of criminal sentence. The Government emphasizes retribution, especially for certain criminal acts, one of which is corruption. The retribution approach shows that the Government is still guided by the prison system doctrine that applied in Dutch colonial law.

In addition, the Petitioner maintains, PP No. 99 of 2012 is a deviating technical regulation as it limits legal and constitutional rights in relation to the need for stricter requirements and procedures for granting remission, assimilation, and parole to fulfill the community’s sense of justice. The conditional limitation on legal substance in the provisions of the Petitioner’s legal and constitutional rights in PP No. 99 of 2012 is contrary to Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In his petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare the provision of Article 14 paragraph (1) letter i of the Correctional Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as interpreted that the granting of remission applies in a discriminatory manner. Should it be maintained, the Petitioner requests that it be interpreted that the granting of remission applies in general, without discrimination. He also requests that the a quo article be interpreted as applicable to all inmates, provided that they show good behavior, have served a criminal sentence of at least 6 months, were not sentenced to life imprisonment, and were not given the death penalty. 

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 9/9/2021 09:47 WIB

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

---