Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, and head of the Public Relations and National Affairs Department Fajar Laksono at a press conference to respond to Denny Indrayana’s statement, Thursday (6/15/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — On May 28, 2023, Gadjah Mada University (UGM) law professor Denny Indrayana made a public statement that the Constitutional Court (MK) was going to rule that the legislative election return to the closed-list proportional system with votes by six justices and three justices dissenting.
The Court finally made a statement in response to the public outcry on the issue. Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, and head of the Public Relations and National Affairs Department Fajar Laksono met with the press on Thursday, June 15, 2023 at the lobby of the plenary courtroom. Deputy Chief Justice Saldi clarified Denny Indrayana’s statement by explaining the chronological details of case No. 114/PUU-XXI/2023 starting from the petition filing until the ruling. He said the petition was received on November 14, 2022 and registered by the Registrar’s Office on November 16. The Court then held a preliminary hearing on November 23 and a petition revision hearing on December 17.
“Afterward, the case went to plenary hearings. The justices had an intense discussion after the petition revision hearing on the case, whether it is to be ruled without plenary hearings or with plenary hearings to hear litigants. It decided that case No. 114/PUU-XX/2022 proceeded to plenary hearings. Why? Because the case is strategic and the Court felt the need to hear the litigants,” Justice Saldi said at the press conference after the pronouncement of Decision No. 114/PUU-XX/2022.
Justice Saldi also said that the case on the election’s system received a lot of public attention, especially those that would be impacted by the decision. Although there was a provisional request that the case be ruled faster, the case had many relevant parties, so it only ended on May 23, 2023. At the last hearing, Chief Justice Anwar Usman as panel chair requested that the litigants submit a conclusion statement on May 31.
“What does it mean? Until May 31, 2023 the justices had not made a position and there had not been any justice deliberation meeting to discuss the case. When did the justices start discussing it? On May 31, the complete documents were sent to the justices, who then read them out and made their position or legal opinion,” Justice Saldi said.
He added that only then did the Registrar’s Office ask the justices about the deliberation meeting schedule to discuss the case.
“However, the justices hadn’t made a position, we were just warming up. Intense discussion only started on June 7. Only then the justices’ positions were stated. And when it was decided, the deliberation meeting was only attended by eight constitutional justices,” he emphasized.
7 to 1
Justice Saldi underlined the importance of the eight constitutional justices at the deliberation meeting. This was to counter Denny Indrayana’s allegation that the Court had ruled 6 to 3 to grant the petition on the closed-list proportional election system, as Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul was on an official work visit overseas.
7 to 1
Justice Saldi underlined the importance of the eight constitutional justices at the deliberation meeting. This was to counter Denny Indrayana’s allegation that the Court had ruled 6 to 3 to grant the petition on the closed-list proportional election system, as Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul was on an official work visit overseas.
“Why did we stretch this out? Because on May 28 there was a statement that the justices had ruled 6 to 3, 6 in agreement and 3 dissenting. This is important for us to discuss because we were disadvantaged. It is as if the discussion was leaked to outside parties when the fact is that the ruling was only handed down on June 7,” he explained.
He also stressed that the Court had decided to make a statement after the ruling hearing, so it might have been delayed. This is because the justices did not want to be distracted from the case.
“The Court did not want its focus and concertation on the resolution of the case be disturbed or influenced when its official statement had not been ruled,” Justice Saldi emphasized.
Ethical Violation
Justice Saldi also stated that the Court had agreed to consider and take steps to report Denny Indrayana as an advocate for alleged violations of the advocate code of ethics.
“Currently, the report is being prepared. Hopefully in the next week we can immediately submit it to the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI), the advocate organization to which Mr. Denny Indrayana is affiliated,” he Saldi.
The Court also studied carefully to file a notification and/or report of the alleged ethical violation to the institution that has the authority to handle such violations in Australia, including the institution that gave and issued a license to Denny Indrayana to practice law as an advocate in Australia.
Justice Saldi said the Court would not report Denny Indrayana to the police and that it had received information that another party had reported Denny Indrayana. The Court strongly encourages the police criminal investigation department (Bareskrim) to follow up and resolve the report objectively and in accordance with statutory provisions.
Author : Utami Argawati/LA
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
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.
Thursday, June 15, 2023 | 16:01 WIB 78