Petitioner of Case Number 140/PUU-XXII/2024 Marthen Y. Siwabessy accompanied by Legal Counsel Anggie Tanjung during the preliminary hearing at the Panel Courtroom, Wednesday (9/10). Photo by MKRI/Teguh.

---

Jakarta, MKRI – Marthen Y. Siwabessy filed a judicial review petition of Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia to the Constitutional Court on Wednesday, October 9, 2024. Legal counsel Anggi Tanjung mentioned that the petitioner questioned the phrase “moral turpitude  ” stipulated in Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution, which reads, “The President and/or the Vice-President may be discharged during his/her term of office by the People’s Consultative Assembly on the proposal of the House of Representatives, both if it is proven that he/she has violated the law through an act of treason, corruption, bribery, other act of a grave criminal nature, or through moral turpitude, and if the President and/or Vice-President no longer meets the qualifications as President and/or Vice-President”.

According to the Petitioner, the phrase has the potential to harm his constitutional rights because he cannot use his constitutional rights to give an objective assessment of the acts and statements of the President and/or Vice President due to the absence of clarity, complete formulation, and strict limitation regarding the phrase "moral turpitude" as stipulated in the article. Accordingly, the Petitioner opined that the power of the president and/or vice president must have limitations, including on the interpretation of the phrase “moral turpitude,” which must have clarity, complete formulation, and strict limitation.

The Petitioner opined that with a strict limitation on the phrase “moral turpitude”, the president and/or vice president will understand and comprehend all of their acts and statements which belong to “moral turpitude” as stipulated in the Constitution. Therefore, the life of the state and nation and the implementation of state governance can be better organized.

If the president and/or vice president has understood the meaning of “moral turpitude” according to the limitation which was provided by constitutional interpretation, hence in the future, the Petitioner may give an objective assessment of the acts and statements of the president and/or vice president. The Petitioner opined that the issue with state governance nowadays, among others, was due to the absence of the constitutional interpretation of the phrase “moral turpitude” in the Constitution. The absence has caused the president and/or vice president to only maintain their acts so that they do not breach five out of six reasons for president and/or vice president impeachment as mentioned in the Constitution.

“Therefore, the Petitioner requests the Constitutional Court to give interpretation grammatically, historically, sociologically, systematically, literally, and authentically to the phrase “moral turpitude” as stipulated in Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Court was also requested to declare the decision of this petition to be an inseparable part of the phrase “moral turpitude” as stipulated in the norm of Article 7A of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia,” Anggie read the petitum of the petition during the hearing led by Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh along with Justice Ridwan Mansyur and Justice Arsul Sani as members of the panel.

The Court’s Authority

Justice Arsul Sani, in giving advice, stated that the substance of the petition was to interpret the article in the Constitution. “Does the Constitutional Court have the authority to decide on this case? There is authority to review law against the 1945 Constitution, there is also an addition to conducting judicial review of the formulation process of the government regulation in lieu of law, so consider again whether the Court has the authority to interpret articles or part of articles in the 1945 Constitution or it should be under the People’s Consultative Assembly,” Arsul explained.

Justice Ridwan Mansyur also advised the Petitioner to include complete identity as per the Court regulation. The Petitioner must also revise his legal standing and arguments on the petition according to the standard structure and systematics of the petition submitted to the Court. “You have not specifically explained harm suffered due to the enactment of the article, so further elaboration is needed by connecting the causal verbal with the potential loss suffered by the Petitioner,” Justice Ridwan explained.

At the end of the hearing, Justice Daniel mentioned that the Petitioner was given fourteen days to revise his petition. The revision must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office no later than Wednesday, October 22, 2024, at 10.00 WIB. (*)

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PRI: Fauzan Febriyan

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---