Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing for case No. 41/PUU-XX/2022 on the judicial review of the Law on the Elimination of Domestic Violence, Tuesday (5/31/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.
Tuesday, May 31, 2022 | 16:24 WIB
JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled to dismiss the judicial review petition of Law No. 23 of 2004 on the Elimination of Domestic Violence (PKDRT Law) was filed by university students Sindi Enjelita Sitorus and Hesti Br Ginting (Petitioners I-II). The Decision No. 41/PUU-XX/2022 was read out in the plenary courtroom.
“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” said Deputy Chief Justice Aswanto alongside seven other constitutional justices at the ruling hearing on Tuesday, May 31, 2022.
In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Court asserted that Article 7 paragraph (2) of Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 specified that a special power of attorney was to be given a duty stamp in accordance with the provisions of the legislation and signed by the giver and recipient of the power. “Because the power of attorney submitted by the Petitioners was not signed by the giver of the power, it did not meet the formal requirement for a power of attorney, thus was formally defective and null and void. Moreover, the power of attorney did not substantially grant the recipient power to attend hearings and other principal matters in relation to the procedural law. However, since the Petitioners attended the hearings on April 14, 2022 and May 11, 2022, the Court continued to examine their petition,” he explained.
The Court, Justice Foekh stated, observed some ambiguity in the petitum, which was cumulative and contradictory, because in point 2, the Petitioners had requested that the Court declare Article 7 of Law No. 23 of 2004 conditionally constitutional as far as the phrase “Psychological violence as referred to in Article 5 letter b shall be any act that results in fear, loss of self-confidence, loss of ability to act, helpless feeling, and/or severe psychological suffering in a person” be amended to read, “Psychological violence as referred to in Article 5 letter b shall be any act that results in fear, loss of self-confidence, loss of ability to act, helpless feeling, and/or severe psychological suffering in a person, taking into account the forms of psychological violence: swear words, insults, negative labeling, or demeaning attitudes and body gestures that demean, limit, or control the victim in order to fulfill the perpetrator’s demands.”
Also read: Psychological Violence in Elimination of Domestic Violence Law Questioned
The Court asserted that such a petitum kept the Court from understanding the Petitioners’ demands because they had requested that the a quo article be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding, but they also requested that the Court interpret it under a condition. Therefore, based on that legal fact, the Court deemed it impossible to grant two contradicting petitum, unless the Petitioners had made the petitum in the form of options.
Moreover, Justice Foekh added, the Petitioners had not submitted a copy of the Law being petitioned and a copy of the 1945 Constitution when, based on Article 11 paragraph (6) and Article 12 paragraph (5) of PMK No. 2 of 2021 the evidence must at least include: a. a copy of the Law or perppu, or at least a part or chapter requested for review, including the cover page and the page that details the date of promulgation of the Law or perppu in question; b. a copy of the 1945 Constitution.
“Based on the aforementioned legal considerations, although the Court was authorized to adjudicate the Petitioners’ petition, because the Petitioners’ petition was obscure, it did not meet the formal requirement for a petition as referred to in Article 30 and Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 2 of 2021. Therefore, the Court did not consider the Petitioners’ legal standing and subject matter further,” Justice Foekh stressed.
Also read: Petitioners of Anti-Domestic Violence Law Revise Petition
At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Leonardo Siahaan alleged that Article 7 of the PDKRT Law did not provide clear definition of psychological violence, thus its interpretation could lead to debate. In addition, this potentially led to constitutional impairment on the Petitioners.
He alleged that it also did not clearly define psychological violence, including that which can result in women being subject to lawsuit and criminalization. He asserted that the ambiguity raised concerns for the Petitioners, who feared they could be subjected to the same fate. What Ms. Valencya did was spontaneous and not intentionally to attack the victim’s psyche.
Degrading and insulting words that have serious consequences if carried out continuously constitute psychological violence. Based on these reasons, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 7 of the PDKRT Law unconstitutional and conditionally constitutional as long as the phrase “forms of psychological violence: statements made with swear words, insults, negative labeling, or demeaning attitudes and body gestures accompanied by information about the psychological condition of a person who is a victim of psychological violence” was added.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 6/2/2022 15:14 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.
Tuesday, May 31, 2022 | 16:24 WIB 190