Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul, Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh opening the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police, Monday (11/22/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

Monday, November 22, 2021 | 22:11 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—When conducting patrol, police officers often carry out identity checks accompanied by video recording to be shown on television, YouTube, or other media. They often scold the people who are being examined in manners that demean human dignity, Leonardo Siahaan and Fransiscus Arian Sinaga (Petitioners) argued in petition No. 60/PUU-XIX/2021 on the material judicial review of Article 16 paragraph (1) letter d of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police.

The a quo article reads, “In implementing the duties as referred to in Article 13 and Article 14 for criminal cases, the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia shall authorize: d. to order the suspect to stop and examine his/her identity.”

The preliminary hearing took place in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday afternoon, November 22, 2021, presided over by Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul (panel chair), Enny Nurbaningsih, and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh. The Petitioners appeared before the Court virtually alongside counsel Eliadi Hulu.

Hulu explained that the Petitioners are Indonesian citizens who could potentially be examined by the police who are checking for IDs following Article 16 paragraph (1) letter d of the Police Law.

“The Petitioners claimed they had anxiety that when they are doing their activity they could be stopped by the police to check their identity or ID cards following the a quo law,” he said.

Hulu said such patrols often occur at night, but are also common in the day. Police officers often scold, yell at, and shout at the person being examined in ways that demean human dignity. Such police checks are often available on television programs such as Program 86 and Jatanras on Net TV and The Police on Trans7 as well as YouTube channels such as Trans7 Official and 86 & Custom Protection.

The Petitioners believe that whether or not the identity of the person being investigated is complete, whether they are under the influence of alcohol or not, whether they are something wrong or not, do no excuse police officers to take actions that demean human dignity, let alone to have it broadcast to the general public on television, YouTube, or other media. They are also concerned about the potential mental damage caused by the consequences after the recording is accessed by the public.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul (panel chair) said the petition’s format had followed the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021. However, he believed the background had not fit the touchstone. He also said that the article petitioned for review was standalone when there were other articles that could be elaborated.

Next, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh said the Petitioners only mentioned the article in question in part about the Court’s authority without elaborating it in detail.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih said the explanation of the Court’s authority was verbose, and advised that it be made brief. She also advised that the touchstone and the Petitioners’ loss due to the enactment of the a quo norm be elaborated.

Writer    : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor   : Nur R.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/23/2021 10:34 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.

---