The ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 35 of 2014 on Child Protection, Tuesday (12/20/2022). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | 12:33 WIB
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) handed down the Decree No. 113/PUU-XX/2022 on the judicial review of Law No. 35 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 23 of 2002 on Child Protection (UUPA Law) on Tuesday, December 20, 2022.
The decree was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices in the plenary courtroom. “[The Court] grants the withdrawal of the Petitioner’s petition,” he said reading out the verdict.
Chief Justice Anwar said that following Article 34 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Court had examined the petition in a panel hearing on November 23, but on the petition revision hearing on December 7, the Petitioner and two counsels requested that the petition be withdrawn in order to wait for the cassation decision by the Supreme Court with the Petitioner being the defendant.
“Article 35 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law stipulates that the Petitioner can withdraw the petition before or during examination. Article 35 paragraph (2) stipulates that the withdrawal makes the a quo petition cannot be re-filed,” Chief Justice Anwar explained.
At a justice deliberation meeting (RPH) on December 13, the constitutional justices had decided that the withdrawal of the case was legally grounded and thus the Petitioner cannot re-file the a quo petition. The constitutional justices then ordered the Chief Registrar to record the petition withdrawal in the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK).
Activist Questions Ambiguous Provisions on Child Exploitation
Activist Withdraws Petition on Child Protection Law
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 believed 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 12/21/2022 08:39 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.