A material judicial review hearing of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Coorruption as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001, Monday (12/18/2023). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001 on the Amendment to Law No. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of the Criminal Acts of Corruption (Anti-Corruption Law) on Monday, December 18, 2023. The petition No. 157/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by three students—Michael Munthe, Teja Maulana Hakim, and Otniel Raja Maruli Situmorang. Michael Munthe is a law student of Atma Jaya University of Yogyakarta, while Teja Maulana Hakim and Otniel Raja Maruli Situmorang are both law students of International University of Batam.

The Petitioners explained that the death penalty is not included directly in Article 2 paragraph (1) or Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law. The death penalty for perpetrators of corruption can only be imposed if certain conditions are met, as stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (2) of the same Law.

“The elucidation to Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law protects perpetrators of corruption from the death penalty,” said the Petitioners’ legal counsel Albert Ola Masan Setiawan Muda alongside Risky Kurniawan, who are both students of International University of Batam.

Albert further stated, “The elucidation to Article 2 paragraph (2) of the Anti-Corruption Law protects perpetrators of corruption from the death penalty because as long as their actions are not included in the provisions ‘earmarked for controlling states of emergency in accordance with existing laws, during national natural disasters, as repeat corruption offenses, or during economic and monetary crisis.’ Even if it is proven to have caused extraordinary financial and economic losses to the state, they cannot be sentenced to death. However, in the case of significant state losses, if those funds were not corrupted and could be saved, it could be used to fulfill the constitutional rights of citizens, including the Petitioners.”

According to the Petitioners, the death penalty should be imposed directly on corruption perpetrators in order to create a strong deterrent. They argue that crime safety is often overlooked because crimes are not taken seriously and do not receive public attention. “[Graft perpetrators] tend to disappear suddenly and also receive pardons,” he said.

Not a Human Rights Violation

The Petitioners argue that the imposition of death penalty for these perpetrators would not be a violation of human rights, because it they have violated the human rights of other Indonesian citizens. The Petitioners also feel that their constitutional rights have been violated when state funds that should have been used for development are instead embezzled by corrupt individuals for their personal enrichment.

“If those funds had not been corrupted and could have been saved, they could have been used to fulfill the constitutional rights of citizens, including those of the Petitioners,” they said.

Petitum

In their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Anti-Corruption Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as “shall be liable to capital punishment, life in prison, or a prison term of not less than 4 (four) years and not exceeding 20 (twenty) years and a fine of not less than Rp200,000,000 (two hundred million rupiah) and not exceeding Rp1,000,000,000 (one billion rupiah).”

The Petitioners also request the Court to declare Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted “shall be liable to capital punishment, life imprisonment, or a prison term of not less than 1 (one) year and not exceeding 20 (twenty) years and/or a fine of not less than Rp50,000,000 (fifty million rupiah) and not exceeding Rp1,000,000,000 (one billion rupiah).”

Justices’ Advice

The hearing was chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh. Chief Justice Suhartoyo reminded the Petitioners to review their petition, particularly the articles they challenge, because the types of acts or criminal offenses in Article 2 paragraph (1) and Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law are different, so the punishment is also different.

“It will be as if there are acts that are not commensurate with the criminal sanctions. In Article 2 paragraph (1), the type of criminal offense is indeed directed towards more severe offenses, but Article 3 is for lighter acts. This means actions there could be not self-enrichment but enriching other people or corporations,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
Translator  : Najwa Afifah Lukman/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.

---