The panel of justice entering the courtroom for the judicial review of Law No. 3 of 2011 on Fund Transfer for case No. 59/PUU-XIX/2021 to examine the petition virtually, Wednesday (11/17/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.

---

Wednesday, November 17, 2021 | 15:54 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 3 of 2011 on Fund Transfer on Wednesday, November 17, 2021. The Petitioner for case No. 59/PUU-XIXI/2021, Indah Harini, was represented by legal counsels Hendri Kusuma, Candra, Yaya Omy, and Guffi Adriyan. The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair), Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Suhartoyo.

The Petitioner challenges Article 85 of Transfer Fund Law, which reads, “Any person who knowingly and acknowledges as his own Fund Transfer results that are known or reasonably known to not belong to him shall be punished with imprisonment of maximum 5 (five) years or a fine of not more 5,000,000,000.00 (five billion rupiahs).” She believes the article is against Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Mistaken Transfer

On December 3, 2019, the Petitioner visited a bank to inquire about the statement of invalid credit account currency that appeared during a fund transfer. On December 10, she revisited the branch to inquire about the same thing. The bank confirmed that it was not a problem and that some money had been transferred to her account. As there was no claim and report on the transfer, she requested that the money be put into a savings deposit.

“However, after some time, the Petitioner received information from the bank that the money came from a mistaken transfer, so the bank requested that the Petitioner sign a paper and requested her to return the money. Because she did not receive an official letter, she was not willing to return it. She was then charged for it by the police,” said Candra at the virtual hearing.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioner to revise the petition following the format laid out in the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021—profile, Court’s authority, background of the petition, and petitum. Justice Manahan also requested that the Petitioner strengthen her legal standing by elaborating the connection between the norm to review and the Petitioner’s constitutional impairment due to the enactment of the norm.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo requested that the Petitioner relate her legal standing and concrete case. Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advise that the Petitioner study the standard format of the petition following PMK No. 2 of 2021.

Writer    : Sri Pujianti
Editor   : Nur R.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/18/2021 08:43 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.

---