The Constitutional Court postponing the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court, Tuesday (12/6/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, December 6, 2022 | 14:47 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the fifth material judicial review hearing of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court on Tuesday, December 6, 2022. The session had been scheduled to hear the statement of the President’s proxy (Attorney General’s Office). After opening the hearing, Chief Justice Anwar Usman informed the parties that the hearing would be an extended panel hearing presided over by only six constitutional justices, as the other three are indisposed. He then asked the litigants of their opinion of the hearing.

The Petitioners’ legal counsel Feri Amsari said that, following the Constitutional Court’s procedural law, a plenary hearing should be presided over by all nine constitutional justices except amid an extraordinary circumstance, where it can be presided over by only seven of them. Therefore, he requested that the hearing be delayed until all constitutional justices can be in attendance.

“As far as I know, an extended panel hearing has been debated and is not implemented in the revised Constitutional Court Law, and that [a plenary hearing must be presided over] by at least seven constitutional justices. With all due respect, it would be better to wait until the number of constitutional justices in attendance be in compliance with the legislation,” he said virtually.

Upon agreement with the litigants, the chief justice declared the hearing postponed until Wednesday, December 14, 2022 to hear the President’s proxy.

Also read:

Boundaries of Human Rights Court Questioned

AJI Revises Legal Standing in Case on Human Rights Court Law

President’s Counsel Asks Hearing on Human Rights Court Law Be Delayed

House’s View on Court on Gross Human Rights Violations

The case No. 89/PUU-XX/2022 on the material judicial review of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court was filed by Marzuki Darusman, Muhammad Busyro Muqoddas, and the Alliance of the Independent Journalists (AJI) (Petitioners I-III).

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, September 26, 2022, the Petitioners argued that the phrase ‘by an Indonesian citizen’ in Article 5 of the Human Rights Court Law had eliminated the state’s responsibility to keep world peace, as the 1945 Constitution mandated, and eliminated the state’s responsibility in crimes in which another state is involved.

The current political situation in Myanmar is still in disarray after the military declared a state of emergency. Gross human rights violations have been committed and are still ongoing.

(Argentine professor of human rights law) Juan E. Mendez stated that the state has the responsibility to protect victims and the people in case of massive, systemic crimes on human rights. The problem is that under the limits of Article 5 of the Human Rights Court Law, victims of human rights violations in Myanmar would find it difficult to fight for their constitutional rights. Myanmar citizens cannot petition the International Criminal Court because Myanmar did not sign the Rome Statute. It would also be impossible for a country such as Myanmar with its military junta to establish a human rights court to try their officials who have committed human rights violations.

The Petitioners believe there has been a legal vacuum in the case of gross human rights violations in Asia, so there needs to be a way to protect citizens, not only of Myanmar but also of ASEAN in general, so that they could have the right to personal defense.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court grant the entire petition and “declare the phrase ’by an Indonesian citizen’ in Article 5 of Law No. 26 of 2000 on Human Rights Court unconstitutional.”  

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

Translation uploaded on 12/6/2022 15:56 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.

---