Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 10 of 1998 on Banking, Wednesday (12/15/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Wednesday, December 15, 2021 | 20:38 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The judicial review petition of Law No. 10 of 1998 on the Amendment to Law No. 7 of 1992 on Banking filed by an ex-director of PT BPR of Palembang, Armansyah, was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court (MK).

In the legal considerations of the Decision No. 58/PUU-XIX/2021, read out by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court asserts that points 2 and 3 of the Petitioner’s petitum are contradictory. In point to, he requested that the Court interpret the phrase “A member of the Board of Commissioners, Board of Directors, or Bank Employee” as “any person” so that Article 49 paragraph (1) letter a of Law No. 10 of 1998 would mean “(1) Any person who knowingly and willfully: (a) creates or causes to exist falsified records in the books or in a report, in a document or report on business operation, a transaction report or an account of a Bank.”

Also read: BPR Palembang Ex-Director Challenges Banking Law’s Provision on Crimes

Meanwhile, in point 3, he requested that the same norm along the word “causes” be reinterpreted to mean, “(1) Any person who knowingly and willfully: (a) creates falsified records in the books or in a report, in a document or report on business operation, a transaction report or an account of a Bank.”

“Points 2 and 3 of the petitum, as previously elaborated, the Court holds, were cumulative because the Petitioner requested that the Court interpret Article 49 paragraph (1) letter a of Law No. 10 of 1998 twice. Such a request lent ambiguity and obscurity to what the Petitioner actually requested. If the petitum as the Petitioner requested was granted, within legal reasoning, there would be norm ambiguity that could lead to legal uncertainty,” Justice Enny stressed at the ruling hearing on Wednesday afternoon, December 15, 2021.

Thus, based on all the legal considerations, the Court found it difficult to understand the meaning of the petition. Although it was within the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate on the a quo petition and the Petitioner had legal standing to file it, due to the petition’s obscurity, the Court did not consider the merit of the petition any further.

Ex-director of PT BPR Palembang Armansyah argues that Article 49 paragraph (1) letters a and b of the Banking Law is vague and has impaired his constitutional rights. Therefore, in the petitum, he requested that the Court declare Article 49 paragraph (1) letters a and b of the Banking Law unconstitutional and not legally binding. He also requested that the Court declare the imposition of criminal charge to the Petitioner on suspicion of the violation of Article 49 paragraph (2) letter b in Chapter VIII on Criminal Provisions and Administrative Sanctions of Law No. 10 of 1998 on Banking constitutes a legal defect.

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/17/2021 13:19 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.

---