Marion, the Petitioner, at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, Monday (7/31/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption on Monday, July 31, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. In the verdict of Decision No. 64/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court declared the petition filed by Marion, an advocate, inadmissible.
“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” Chief Justice Anwar Usman said reading out the verdict.
In its legal opinion, delivered by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Court revealed that the Petitioner had revised the petition that he had first filed on July 12 and 17, both versions having the same substance. It had also been examined at a petition revision hearing on July 24.
Nevertheless, despite the format having complied with that as set forth in Article 31 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) letters a, b, c, and d of Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021, the Petitioner failed to elaborate his impairment due to the enactment of Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999. Instead, he only argued his legal standing by explaining that the House of Representatives (DPR) exercises the people’s sovereignty.
In addition, he had not specifically elaborated the causality between the Law which had or could potentially harm his constitutional rights as an Indonesian citizen and advocate relating to the a quo article. As such, his legal standing was obscure.
In addition, Justice Foekh added, in the posita (background of petition), the Petitioner did not explain the contradiction between the article petitioned and articles in the 1945 Constitution (touchstones). Instead, he explained the concrete case of Dr. Stefanus Roy Rening, S.H., M.H., an advocate charged with obstruction of justice in a corruption case involving defendant Lukas Enembe (non-active governor of Papua Province). As such, the Court held that the posita was irrelevant, thus outside of the Court’s jurisdiction.
The Court also held that the petitum was unusual. “Because, on the one hand, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 21 of Law No. 31 of 1999 unconstitutional while, on the other hand, he requested that the Court declare [it] conditionally unconstitutional. Based on logical reasoning, those petitums were contradictory and the Court cannot grant both simultaneously. [Either one] could only be granted when [both] were presented as alternatives,” Justice Foekh stressed.
Also read:
Advocate Challenges Provisions on Obstruction of Justice
Petitioner of Provisions on Obstruction of Justice Strengthens Argument
At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, July 5, the Petitioner said Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law had harmed his constitutional rights as an individual Indonesian citizen and an advocate with a firm as well as the constitutional rights of Stefanus Roy Rening, an advocate, who had been named a suspect of obstruction of justice as referred to in Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law, thus the implementation of the article was not in line with Article 16 in conjunction with Article 31 of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates.
Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law reads, “Any person intentionally preventing or obstructing, or directly or indirectly sabotaging investigations, prosecution, and examinations of suspects or defendants or witnesses in corruption cases in a court of justice shall be liable to a prison term of not less than 3 (three) years and not exceeding 12 (twelve) years and/or a fine of Rp150,000,000 (one hundred and fifty million rupiahs) and not exceeding Rp600,000,000 (six hundred million rupiahs).”
Article 16 of the Advocate Law reads, “Advocates may not be prosecuted civilly or criminally if they perform their profession in good faith for the interest of defending a client in trial.”
The Petitioner also said the KPK (Corruption Eradication Commission) investigators who named the aforementioned advocate a suspect of obstruction of justice had committed violation of human rights, more specifically of the advocate’s rights, which is against Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which is the legal foundation for advocates in Indonesia.
He further explained that what the KPK investigators did to Stefanus Roy Rening was unprofessional and an inappropriate implementation of Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Law, given that Stefanus is an advocate who has met requirements as set by law. He argued that advocates also have legal standing in law enforcement as law enforcement apparatuses equal to KPK investigators and other law enforcement apparatuses such as police investigators, public prosecutors, and judges.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Muhammad Halim
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.
Monday, July 31, 2023 | 18:03 WIB 284