The preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Veteran Law, Monday (7/22/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W. M.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Article 4 letter c of Law No. 15 of 2012 on Veterans against the 1945 Constitution on Monday, July 22, 2024. The petition No. 74/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Hukman Reni, an entrepreneur.
At the hearing, Hukman Reni, who appeared before the Court without a legal counsel, said that this petition was submitted because he views the Constitutional Court (MK) as the Guardian of the Constitution. “As a follow-up on that, I found that there is a law that violates constitutional rights, specifically Article 4 letter c of the Veteran Law No. 15 of 2012,” he stated.
He argued that Article 4 letter c of Law No. 15 of 2012 on Veterans only stipulates that those who can be awarded veteran’s merits awards are those who were part of official armed militias and fought from 1975 to 1976. The Petitioner believes that this time limitation restricts the rights of the Petitioner or others who had also defended the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia in East Timor up until 1999.
“In addition to the time limitation, it also restricts those who contributed their efforts and thoughts to defending the country in East Timor during the integration period. This includes those who worked as Indonesian Red Cross members, teachers, and others,” he said before the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah
In his petition, the Petitioner emphasized that during the integration period, not only the official armed forces actively defended and upheld the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia, but also Indonesian citizens who played an active role in these efforts in East Timor. Furthermore, he stated that the principle of equality before the law is a fundamental basis of a legal state, as stipulated in Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which declares that all citizens are equal before the law and government without exception.
However, according to Hukman, the Veteran Law limits the category of veterans by stating in Article 4 that ‘Veteran Pembela Seroja’ only includes those who were actively involved in the Seroja operation between May 21, 1975, and July 17, 1976. This time restriction disregards the rights of citizens who fought after this period until 1999, and the phrase “active role in operations/battles within armed units” also overlooks the contributions of citizens outside the official armed forces in receiving recognition and honors as veterans of the Republic of Indonesia.
Hukman also emphasized that, based on a sense of justice, he requests the Court to accept and grant the petition for judicial review, suggesting that Article 4 letter c of the Veteran Law be amended to extend the time frame from May 21, 1975 to July 17, 1976 to cover the period from 1975 to 1999, or at least until October 19, 1999 when the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) issued Decree No. V/MPR/1999 on referendum in East Timor. Additionally, the explanation should explicitly include that Indonesian citizens wgo had been involved in various roles—such as members of the Indonesian Red Cross (PMI), healthcare workers, general education teachers, public kitchen managers, armament and ammunition personnel, communication officers, couriers, drivers, village guards, people’s defense (wanra), people’s security areas (kamra), and spies who actively participated in the events in East Timor during this period—are entitled to receive honors and recognition as veterans of the Republic of Indonesia.
Justices’ Advice
Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur suggested that the Petitioner revise the petition. “The Court’s authority has not yet referenced the provisions in the law; please ensure that this is addressed. Additionally, the petition lacks a clear depiction of how the alleged harm is related to the case. The petition still needs more solid grounding,” he said.
Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh stated that in the petition’s rationale, the Petitioner must link the issues directly to the articles being reviewed. “Why does Article 4 conflict with the Constitution?” asked Justice Daniel.
Before adjourning the hearing, Justice Guntur said the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition and must submit it by Monday, August 5 at 09:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office.
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Fauzan F.
Translator : Naomi Andrea Zebua/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 22, 2024 | 15:13 WIB 67