The Petitioner’s legal counsel withdrawing the formal and material judicial review petition of Law No. 35 of 2014 on Child Protection, Wednesday (12/7/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Wednesday, December 7, 2022 | 12:13 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the formal and material judicial review of Law No. 35 of 2014 on Child Protection (UUPA Law) on Wednesday, December 7, 2022.
The session had been scheduled to examine the revisions to the petition, but the Petitioner wished to withdraw the petition. This fact was discovered when Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked legal counsel Gunawan Pharikesit for confirmation. At the previous hearing, the justice panel had advised the Petitioner to wait until her concrete case has been ruled. Justice Suhartoyo explained that the constitutional impairment is inseparable from the Petitioner’s case in the district court.
“[At the previous hearing], [you] said [you] were considering withdrawing (the petition). Therefore, we would like affirmation that the petition will be withdrawn and can be filed after [you receive] a ruling [that has permanent legal force] for the concrete case at the Kotabumi District Court,” he said.
In response, the counsel affirmed that the petition would be withdrawn. “As Mrs. Merry’s legal counsel, I declare that the formal and material petition No. 113/PUU-XX/2022 will be withdrawn, under consideration that we are following the advice of the constitutional justices, since the principal [Petitioner] is [waiting for] cassation by the public prosecutor for the ruling at the Kotabumi [District] Court. The written [request] will be submitted at a later date,” he explained.
Also read: Activist Questions Ambiguous Provisions on Child Exploitation
The petition No. 113/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Merry, an activist from North Lampung. She challenges Article 76H of the Child Protection Law, which reads, “Anyone shall be prohibited from recruiting or utilizing Children for military purposes and/or other purposes and from leaving children without life protection.”
At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, November 23, counsel Gunawan Pharikesit asserted that the Petitioner felt harmed due to the formation of the Child Protection Law, which she believes to be neither firm nor clear (lex certa and lex stricta) due to the ambiguous sentences or other parts of the article. This resulted in her being harmed in her effort to develop herself and her social environment and the lack of acknowledgement of personal rights, recognition, guarantees, protection, and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law.
Article 76H of the Child Protection Law led to the Petitioner being declared a person of interest by the North Lampung precinct police. She was also declared a defendant by the public prosecutor of the North Lampung District Prosecutor’s Office at the District Court of Kutabumi, North Lampung.
“Article 76H of Law No. 35 of 2014 especially the phrase “and/or other purposes” is in violation of Article 28E paragraph (3), 28D paragraph (1), and 28F of the 1945 Constitution,” Gunawan said.
Based on those assertions, in the petitum, the Petitioner appealed to the Court to grant the petition in full and declare the phrase “and/or other purposes” in Article 76H of the Child Protection Law unconstitutional.
Writer : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Translation uploaded on 12/7/2022 14:15 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.