Chief Justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict for the judicial review of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) for case No. 10/PUU-XXI/2023, Tuesday (2/28/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

Tuesday, February 28, 2023 | 16:38 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed the material judicial review petition of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) at a ruling hearing on Tuesday, January 28, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The petition No. 10/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Andi Redani Suryanata and 19 other university students. They challenged Articles 256, 603, and 604 of the new Criminal Code.

“[The Court] declares the Petitioners’ petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman alongside the other eight constitutional justices.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Court asserted that the Petitioners explained their constitutional rights as granted by Article 28 and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. However, the Court stated that in order to argue constitutional impairment, any of those rights must have been harmed by the enactment of the norms of Law being petitioned.

“Therefore, considering the legal facts during the proceedings, the Petitioners’ constitutional rights have not been related to the enactment of the Law, in casu Law No. 1 of 2023. The article in Law No. 1 of 2023 that the Petitioners petitioned for are not in force yet and, thus, is not legally binding, as per Article 87 of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking as last amended by Law No. 13 of 2022,” Justice Suhartoyo said.

He added that the new Criminal Code had not potentially impacted the Petitioners’ constitutional rights, not to mention actually. Potential impairment, he said, is any impairment that has not occurred but could potentially occur because of the enactment of a law. Therefore, constitutional impairment concerns a norm of law that is in effect.

The Court believed the Petitioners had not met the requirement of constitutional impairment, thus there was no causality between their constitutional rights and the enactment of the Law, thus they were irrelevant.

The Petitioners had connected the Constitutional Court Decision No. 110/PUU-X/2012, which applies to the decision for this case, mutatis mutandis. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Petitioners did not have legal standing to file the petition. If they had, the Court could have considered the subject matter. However, since the a quo articles are not in effect yet and not legally binding, the Court declared the petition premature. The Court also asserted that, even though it had jurisdiction over the case, the petition was not considered since the Petitioners did not have legal standing in the case.

Also read:

Constitutionality of Provisions in New Criminal Code Challenged

University Students Revise Petition on New Criminal Code

At the preliminary hearing on February 7, Andi Redani Suryanata, one of the petitioners, said virtually that the Petitioners are expressly against corruption, including in university environment. They believe the fight against corruption in Indonesia is futile and restricted because the legal system has created weaknesses in the eradication of corruption and because criminal sanctions for corruption in the new Criminal Code are weak.

As students, the Petitioners have also protested against problematic policies such as the problematic articles in the a quo case. They were worried that the enactment of the articles would sow fear in anyone who wishes to join a protest for fear of prosecution under those articles. Therefore, they requested that the Court annul the articles petitioned. 

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Tiara Agustina
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 3/1/2023 08:18 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.

---