The panel constitutional justices entering the courtroom for the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of No. 11 of 2011 on the Attorney General’s Office, Thursday (2/3/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W.M.

---

Thursday, February 3, 2022 | 19:36 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—Law No. 11 of 2011 on the Attorney General’s Office, promulgated on December 31, 2021, was petitioned materially in the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 9/PUU-XIX/2021 took place on Thursday, February 3, 2022. Petitioner Ricki Martin Sidauruk challenged the reenactment of the provision on the Attorney General’s Office’s authority to file a judicial review (PK) petition.

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Petitioner argued that not only does the provision, stipulated in Article 30C letter h of the a quo law, go against his constitutional right to just enforcement of the law, but also it also goes against the principle of legal certainty in the law-based state of the Republic of Indonesia.

He believes the provision puts aside the Constitutional Court’s Decision No. 16/PUU-VI/2008, which is generally binding. “The enactment of the a quo article potentially leads to uncertainty or ambiguity in judicial review. Thus, the Petitioner’s right to guaranteed just legal enforcement that has legal certainty has been violated due to Article 30C letter h of the Attorney General’s Office Law,” he stressed virtually.

The Petitioner added that the disregard for the Constitutional Court decision also potentially leads to ambiguity and legal uncertainty in law enforcement. “If the provision of Article 30C letter h of the Attorney General’s Office Law continues to be in effect, it is feared that it will set a bad precedent for the constitutional adjudication mechanism as the Constitutional Court decisions are generally accepted and are final and binding, but in reality they can be disregarded,” he said.

He added that the judicial review is based on the philosophy of returning one’s rights and justice after unfair treatment by the state through the decision of a judge. He also believes that the judicial review was adopted for the convicted or their heirs, not for the state or the victims.

Therefore, the Petitioner added, disregarding this has led to the loss of the meaning of judicial review and the potential violation of the protection of human rights for the convicted. He believes judicial review is an extraordinary legal measure that the convicted or their heirs can take against the state. Thus, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 30C letter h of the Attorney General’s Office Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul advised the Petitioner to complete the Constitutional Court’s authorities in the petition. “I advise [you] to complete [the petition] in terms of [the Constitutional Court’s] authorities. There is a new law [on the Constitutional Court] that you have not included,” he said. He also recommended that the Petitioner complete his profile in the part on legal standing.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo requested the Petitioner to elaborate both his factual and potential constitutional impairment. “Did you suffer real losses, or at least potential ones? The potential [impairment] is not without parameter. You have to have sufficient evidence. Not anyone can argue for it in general. This is important to obtain legal standing,” he explained.

Before concluding the hearing, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo informed the Petitioner that he had been given 14 workdays to revise the petition, which must be received by the Registrar’s Office by Wednesday, February 16, 2022.

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

Translation uploaded on 2/4/2022 11:11 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.

---