Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Article 491 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code, Friday (4/14/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) decided not to accept the judicial review petition of Article 491 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code (KUHP) on Friday, April 14, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The ruling hearing for Decision No. 24/PUU-XXI/2023, petitioned by Risky Kurniawan and Michael Munte, was presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other constitutional justices.

In its legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Court revealed that the petition was based on the condition in their residents, where persons with mental disorders (ODGJ) wandered. As law students, they intended to research on ODGJs but they feared criminalization due to the article.

They also felt that they were not free to do or not to do something based on the laws and regulations. However, in the petition, they did not explain the evidence that could show the number of ODGJs wandering in their residences nor could they show evidence that they had been harassed by ODGJs. They only explained their intent to conduct research on ODGJs, but failed to explain their interest.

Also read:

Two University Students Question Obligation to Care for Lunatics

Caring for Lunatics, Whose Responsibility?

The Petitioners also did not explain if they have family members with mental health disorders. The Court believed they only explained their fear of harassment by ODGJs and of criminal charge for not caring for ODGJs. They did not explain in detail specific, actual, or at least potential things that could happen to them because of ODGJs, which according to logical reasoning is inevitable.

“Actually, Article 491 paragraph (1) of Criminal Code is meant for those who are responsible for caring for ODGJs, which, according to Staatsblad 1897 No. 54, are immediate family members who have moral responsibility and not legal one. Meanwhile, Article 80 of Law No. 18 of 2014 on Mental Health stipulates that those responsible for caring for ODGJs are the central and regional governments. Meanwhile, the Petitioners did not explain their relations to ODGJs because they are not among the ones responsible for ODGJs. Therefore, the norm is not intended for the Petitioners, and the Petitioners did not suffer any loss of constitutional rights due to the enactment of the a quo article,” Justice Manahan explained.

Based on those legal considerations, the Court asserted that the Petitioners could not explain their constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 491 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code because, in fact, the article provides protection for the community from any threat coming from ODGJs, so the Petitioners did not have the legal standing to file the petition.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---