Test The Material Constitutional Court Number 73/puu-Viii/2010 2010

Original Language Title: Uji Materi Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 73/PUU-VIII/2010 Tahun 2010

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
Microsoft Word-73 VERDICT _ edit _ the VERDICT of clerk the number 73/PUU-VIII/2010 for the SAKE of FAIRNESS UPON the DIVINITY of the ONE TRUE GOD of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT of the REPUBLIC of INDONESIA [1.1] Are checked, prosecute, and disconnected things of the Constitution on the first and last levels, dropping a verdict in the case of application for Testing Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and Act No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 , submitted by: [1.2] name: NICOLAE POPA; Place/date of birth: Teoiu-Vilcea Romania, 28 February 1964; Religion: Christian; Occupation: Self-employed; Nationality: Romania; Address: Jalan Mertha Gedong Sari Supreme Gg. Number 6, Kerobokan, Bali. On the basis of a special power of attorney dated October 27, 2010 authorizes Shanti Devi, S.H., M.H.; Tumbu Saraswati, S.H., Andrew Simatupang, S.H., Henry Napitulupu, S.H., Nofia Ridwan, S.H., Lammarasi Sihaloho, S.H., and Fajri Partama, S.H., Advocates and legal advisers from the Law Office of Toedjoeh Four & Law firm, choose domicile law at Graha Toedjoeh Four Woltermongosidi Road number 15 New Kebanyoran, South Jakarta, acting either jointly or singly for and on behalf of the giver of power; Hereinafter referred to as –-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-–-Appellant; [1.3] Read the petition of the applicant; Hearing a description of the applicant; Examine the evidence the applicant;

2 2. SITS MATTERS [2.1] considering that the applicant had filed a petition with the application letter dated November 4, 2010, which was accepted and registered with the Registrar of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as the clerk of the Court) on November 15, 2010, with registration of case Number 73/PUU-VIII/2010, that has been fixed and accepted at the Registrar of the Court on 21 December 2010, which is substantially as follows: PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 1. That the applicant is a citizen of Romania who had settled in Indonesia since June 11, 2000 up to now, with a Permanent residence permit Card (KITAP) from Ngurah Rai Immigration Office with the number 2D1E 501-E which is valid until January 18, 2011. Therefore, the applicant had 10 (ten) years residing and resides in Indonesia. In 2002, the petitioner has made the driving licences (LICENCE) and in March 2007, Police in Bali A SIM with the number published 640216180812 that apply to Nicolae Popa, February 28, 2012, as well as during in Indonesia, the applicant actively participated in social activities and sports organizations in Bali; 2. That on October 19, 2009, the Government of Indonesia received a letter with the number of Interpol Bucharest 9122/BCF/OMD. Subject search application, capture, and extradition on behalf of the applicant; 3. That the applicant, on December 2, 2009 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Jakarta have been arrested by investigators of the Directorate II/Eksus Bareskrim Police upon arrest warrant Number Pol SP. Kap/65/XlI/2009/Recorded II Eksus dated 1 December 2009 (vide Evidence P4); 4. That on the basis of the detention Warrant Number Pol: SP. Han/37/XII/2009/Recorded II Eksus (vide Evidence P-4), dated December 2, 2009, the applicant has been designated as a suspect and held prisoner in the home country in the National Police Headquarters for 20 days as of since December 3, 2009, and ended on December 22, 2009, for allegedly had committed criminal acts of fraud based on Red Notice from Interpol with the number Letter 2009-29089 and/or misuse of immigration in accordance with Act No. 9 of 1992 on Immigration. With the absence of the provisional detention request from the Government of Romania; 5. That the Government of Romania to apply extradition on behalf of the claimant to the Government of Indonesia with its Letter Number 411/PO/XII/2009/59/08, dated December 9, 2009 and the Embassy of Romania's diplomatic Note the number 1145, dated December 14, 2009 (vide Evidence P-5) who are attached with the decision of the Justice of the District Court of Bucharest Criminal Devision II Number 423, dated March 20, 2007 and strengthened by a decision of a judge of the High Court of Justice and Casation Number 2098 , dated June 4, 2009 stating Nicolae Popa was sentenced to 15 years in prison; 6. That since December 3, 2009 and he made this appeal, under article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT, the Applicant's response to the detention has been extended by as much as 6 (six) times, with the description as follows (vide Evidence P4): 1) Detention by investigators, dated December 3, 2009 with a letter Number Pol: SP. Han/37/XII/2009/.dit-II-Eksus, as of December 3, 2009 and ended on December 22, 2009; 2) Extension to-1 by the South Jakarta District Court Chief with the designation Number 377/Pen. Pid/2010/PN. Jkt-cells, dated December 16, 2009, on December 23, 2009 and ended on January 21, 2010; 3-2nd Extension) by the Chairman of the South Jakarta District Court with the designation Number 377/Pen. Pid/2010/PN. Jkt-cells, dated January 21, 2010, as of 22 January 2010 until 20 February 2010; 4 the 3rd Extension) by the Chairman of the South Jakarta District Court with the designation Number 377/Pen. Pid/2010/PN. Jkt-cells, dated February 11, 2010, from February 21 2010 to March 22, 2010; 5) 4th Extension by the Chairman of the South Jakarta District Court with the designation Number 377/Pen. Pid/2010/PN. Jkt-cells, dated March 15, 2010, as of March 22, 2010 to April 21, 2010; 6) 5th Extension by the Chief of the South Jakarta State Pengadiian with the designation Number 377/Pen. Pid/2010/PN. Jkt-cells, dated April 15, 2010, as of April 22, 2010 to May 21, 2010;

4 7) extension of the 6th by the Chairman of the South Jakarta District Court with the designation Number 377/Pen. Pid/2010/PN. Jkt-cells, dated May 12, 2010, as of 10 May 2010 to 20 June 2010. as well as lived the Pembantaran Detention based on the letter of the Director of the special economic Police Number II SP. Han/37, d/V/2010/Recorded II Eksusu, dated 26 May 2010 about the warrant of Detention Pembantaran the name Nicolae Popa, since May 26, 2010 until this petition is created. This is because the applicant is experiencing pain and depression, then by doing so until this petition is made, the applicant has undergone a period of detention for more than 300 (three hundred) days; 7. That the extension of detention against the applicant based on article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT is detrimental to the applicant's constitutional rights. Are materially, such article, which States that: article 34 Detention ordered under article 25 repealed, if: a. .... etc; b. been running for thirty (30) days unless extended by the Court at the request of the Prosecutor; c. .... etc; Article 35 "(1) the period of detention referred to in article 34 the letter b every time can be extended by thirty (30) day". obviously very conflicted with the Constitution. Because Article 28D paragraph (1) States unequivocally that everyone barhak over the legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law. Because of that, then by extension of detention that do not have a definite time limit on, very contrary to the principle of legal certainty, as stated in article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, in carrying out this responsibility, the State, especially the Government, should follow the principles of the law of the State in accordance with article 1 paragraph (3) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945;

5 8. That the process of extradition are governed by article 39 paragraph (4) of the extradition ACT is detrimental to the applicant's constitutional rights, or at least are potentially will harm the constitutional rights of the applicant. Article 39 paragraph (4) of the extradition ACT, which States: "in terms of the extradition request as referred to in paragraph (1) was adopted, then President rnemerintahkan Minister of Justice of Republic Indonesia to process more Ianjut just as there are extradition treaty between the Republic of Indonesia with peminta"; obviously very conflicted with the Constitution. Because Article 28D paragraph (1) States unequivocally that everyone is entitled to a fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law. With the absence of an extradition treaty between the Government of Indonesia with the country's top Peminta, causing a lack of extradition treaty used in Extradition Proceedings against the applicant. Therefore, the extradition process then is uncertain, it is quite contrary to the principle of legal certainty as stated in article 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution. Furthermore, in carrying out this responsibility, the State, especially the Government, should follow the principles of the law of the State in accordance with article 1 paragraph (3) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; II. CONSTITUTIONAL COURT of AUTHORITY 9. That Article 24 paragraph (2) of the third Change of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution) States that the Judicial power exercised by a Supreme Court and judicial bodies that are underneath it in an environment of Public Justice, Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice, Environmental Justice, and The Country by a Constitutional Court; 10. That Section 24C subsection (1) changes the third Constitution juncto article 10 paragraph (1) of Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (hereinafter referred to as the ACT on the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT) States that the Constitutional Court is authorized to adjudicate on the first and last level that an award is final to examine legislation against the Constitution, severing of disputes the authority of State institutions


6 that those powers given by the Constitution, severing the dissolution of political parties and break the disputes about election results; 11. That which becomes the object of filing permohonon this test is legislation, namely Article 51 paragraph (1) letter a LAW COURT and article 34 the letter b, article 35, paragraph (1) and article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition (State Gazette of Republic of Indonesia in 1979 number 2) which further testing done against the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 12. That based on the provisions of the above, therefore, that petitioned to be tested is an act against the Constitution, then the Constitutional Court is authorized to inspect, judge, and disconnect the test application this material. III. The POSITION of the LAW and the CONSTITUTIONAL INTERESTS of the APPLICANT. That under article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT stating, "the applicant is a party which considers the right and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of the Act, namely: a. the individual citizen of Indonesia; b. ... etc; Explanation of the ACT of the Court, article 51 paragraph (1) letter a declared, "is a" constitutional rights "are the rights set forth in the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945"; 14. That the Constitutional Court in Ruling Number 006/PUU-III/2005 has provided an explanation to know constitutional rights and constitutional losses as follows: a. the existence of the applicant's constitutional rights provided by the Constitution; b. the applicant's constitutional rights that are considered by the applicant have been wronged by an act that was tested; c. Constitutional losses that the claimant in question are specific (Special) and actual or potential nature at least according to the reasoning reasonably certain will happen; d. the existence of a causal relationship (causal verband) between the losses and the enactment of legislation that petitioned to be tested;

7 e. of the possibility that by dikabulkannya the petition then postulated that a constitutional disadvantage will not or no longer occur. Applicant: 15. That the applicant is an individual citizen of Romania who had settled in Indonesia since June 11, 2000, as well as the applicant has been granted the residence permit Card Remain (KITAP). Therefore, the applicant had 10 (ten) years residing and resides in Indonesia. The applicant has been detained since December 3, 2009 and until recently has been subject to the extension of the detention of as many as 6 (six) times associated with the petition for extradition from the country of Romania against the applicant. The existence of the limitation on article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the applicant could not lead the COURT into a party that can apply the test of article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT; 16. That the existence of the condition, in which the applicant could not apply simply because the applicant is a citizen of a foreign country has removed the right of the applicant to be recognized as a person before the law, which is one of the fundamental human rights which cannot be reduced (non-derogable rights) as guaranteed in article 28I paragraph (1) of the Constitution and such restrictions have also caused the loss of the right of the applicant to obtain the recognition and equal treatment before the law , as stated in section 28D subsection (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 17. That the Extradition ACT is a law that keberlakuannya Iebih is addressed to foreign nationals who have legal interests directly to perform a test materially against Extradition ACT. Therefore, in this appeal, the applicant considers it necessary to do a test materially against Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT because that provision is highly detrimental to the interests of the applicant's law; 18. That Article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of law No. 1 of 1979, which set about the extension of detention of, as well as Article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979, which set about the process of the implementation of the extradition, clearly very detrimental, the applicant's constitutional rights. With the setting of such article, the period of detention and extradition proceedings against the applicant became uncertain, 8 whereas Article 28D paragraph (1) States unequivocally that legal certainty is the constitutional right of any person; 19. That thus the Applicant is aggrieved parties konstitusionalnya rights over the enactment of Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT as well as Article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of law number 1 Year I979; 20. That earlier, the Constitutional Court had rejected a submission by the applicant permohanan foreign citizens (FOREIGNERS), which, in consideration of the Law Court in the verdict of the numbers 2-3/PUU-V/2007 about testing Act No. 22 of 1997 concerning Narcotics toward the Constitution, 368 page States: "considering that the position of the law (legal standing) the applicant is a FOREIGN NATIONAL in a quo, the Court held as follows : a. Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT along with the explanation is very firm and clear (expressis verbis) States that individuals are entitled to apply for testing legislation against the Constitution (which has constitutional rights provided by the CONSTITUTION of 1945) only CITIZENS, FOREIGNERS are not entitled. b. No question a FOREIGN NATIONAL in dimungkinkannya the legislation of the Republic of Indonesia does not mean FOREIGN NATIONAL did not receive legal protection according to the principle of due process of law, in casu the criminal provisions in the event of death where the applicant can still make the effort of laws (legal remedies) in the form of appeal, Cassation and review; c. Explanation of article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT about "individual" includes the Group of people who have the same interests must be associated with the sound of Article 51 paragraph (1) letter a "individual citizens of Indonesia '', so more information after there is an explanation of article 51 paragraph (1) letter a should read" individuals include people who have the same interests are Indonesian citizens. Thus, the applicant is a FOREIGN NATIONAL does not meet the qualifications as the provisions of article 51 paragraph (1) along with a letter of explanation, so that the applicant is a FOREIGN NATIONAL has no legal position (legal standing) in a quo. " 21. That in consideration of the above law, in particular the letter b, which States that a FOREIGN NATIONAL can legal efforts in the form of appeal, cassation 9, and review, it can be done in terms of the provisions of the criminal to death, because death is one of the criminal form of pemidanaan in the Court ruling, but to note in this appeal is that which is a staple issue of this appeal is the provisions on extradition are regulated in article 34 the letter b Article 35, paragraph (1), and article 39 paragraph (4) of the extradition ACT, not about the extradition Court Assignment. So these two things are two different things; 22. That the remedy in the form of appeal, Cassation, and review, is a remedy that is made against the ruling of the Court, rather than against the actions or processes that occur before the trial. Moreover, if the actions or processes that occur before the trial, conducted by authorities because it is the rule that authorizes, so there is no possible remedy in the form of appeal, Cassation, and review, as well as resistance and pretrial. The most possible remedy is to ask the testing done against the legislation a quo. Therefore, the consideration of the Court above the very inappropriate if used as a pretext to reject the position of the law (legal standing) the applicant a quo, and very reasonable to declare that the applicant has the legal position (legal standing) to apply for a quo; IV. APPLICATION for 23 points. That are tested in this solicitation is test material over Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT Article 34 MK, letter b Article 35, paragraph (1), and article 39 paragraph (4). Act No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition. The reasons for TESTING MATERIAL 24. That Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT stated, "the applicant is a party which considers the right and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of the Act, namely: a. the individual citizen of Indonesia; b .... etc; "


10 a. of article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT is contrary to Article 28D Constitution about the right of every person to get recognition and equal treatment before the law. 25. That Article 28D Constitution states unequivocally, '' everyone is entitled to recognition, guarantees, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law ". 26. That the formulation of the clauses in the Constitution uses different phrases is to demonstrate the scope of the subject of the articles setting, among other "every citizen", "every citizen", "every citizen", and "everyone", under which Article 26 Constitution gives explanations as follows: "(1) be a citizen is the people Nation Indonesia and the people of other nations who are authorized by law as citizens; (2) a resident is a citizen of Indonesia and foreigners residing in Indonesia; (3) matters concerning citizens and the population is regulated by law. " That was then, article 1 point 2 Act No. 23 of 2006 about the residency Administration States, "Resident is a citizen of Indonesia and foreigners residing in Indonesia"; 27. That the formulation of article 28D of the CONSTITUTION of 1945, which uses the phrase "any person", taken to mean that the enforceability of such article is to include all those who are in the territory of the Republic of Indohesia, for the sense of the phrase "any person" is the same as the notion of "population" as referred to in article 26 paragraph (2) of the Constitution and article 1 point 2 Act No. 23 of 2006. Therefore, the enforceability of Article 28D the CONSTITUTION of 1945, not only for the citizens of Indonesia, but applies also to foreign nationals residing in Indonesia. This is in line with the opinion of the former Constitutional Judge Laica Marzuki HM. (in the Dissenting Opinion Ruling number 2-3/PUU-V/2007 about testing Act No. 22 of 1997 concerning Narcotics toward the Constitution of 1945, p. 443) stating, "the words" any person "in article 11 28D paragraph (1) of the Constitution does not merely comprise the citizen right but an equal right for every person in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia '' 28. That Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT limiting the COURT parties can be the applicant's objective was to test a statute, particularly for foreign nationals, it is contrary to Article 28D Constitution. Because of the existence of the provision of article, foreign nationals, obstructed the right to apply for judicial review against a test pemohonan law; 29. The Constitution that judges h. Harjono in Dissenting Opinion Ruling number 2-3/PUU-V/2007 about testing Act No. 22 of 1997 concerning Narcotics toward the CONSTITUTION of 1945, page 434) States, "in relation to the enactment of legislation can be distinguished between legislation that does cater specifically to foreign nationals, the legislation earmarked specifically for the citizens of Indonesia, and laws that cater well for Indonesia Citizens or foreign nationals" 30. That article 1 the extradition ACT States, "In this Act is the Extradition is the surrender by one State to the State requesting the surrender of a person who is suspected or are convicted for committing a crime outside the territory of the country who submit and within the jurisdiction of the territory of the State requesting the surrender because authorities to prosecute and memidananya". Then considering the existence of one of the principle of extradition, namely the principle of not handing over citizens, who poured within article 7 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT, which clearly States, "the extradition Request against the citizens of the Republic of Indonesia rejected." The enactment of the principle is as the embodiment of the State's obligation to protect its citizens, in this case is a citizen of Indonesia. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the enforceability of the extradition ACT are more directed against foreign nationals. 31. That the enactment of the ACT on extradition of more reserved for Foreigners than for citizens of Indonesia, then it is natural when 12 test application material submitted by the Extradition ACT of foreign nationals, as foreign nationals had legal interest in Iangsung over the enactment of legislation a quo; 32. That refers to the legal Reasoning of the Court in its verdict of the numbers 2-3/PUU-V/2007 about testing Act No. 22 of 1997 concerning Narcotics toward the Constitution, 368 pages States, "considering that the position of the law (legal standing) the applicant is a FOREIGN NATIONAL in a quo, the Court held as follows: a. Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT along with the explanation is very firm and clear (expressis verbis) States that individuals are entitled to apply for testing legislation against the Constitution (which means it has the right constitutionally granted by Constitution) only CITIZENS, FOREIGNERS are not entitled; b. No question a FOREIGN NATIONAL in dimungkinkannya the legislation of the Republic of Indonesia does not mean that the FOREIGN NATIONAL did not receive legal protection according to the principle of due process of law, in casu the criminal provisions in the event of death where the applicant can still make the effort of laws (legal remedies) in the form of appeal, Cassation, and review; c. Explanation of article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT about "individual" includes the Group of people who have the same interests must be associated with the sound of Article 51 paragraph (1) letter a "individual citizens of Indonesia", so more information after there is an explanation of article 51 paragraph (1) letter a should read "individuals include people who have the same interests of the citizens of Indonesia". Thus, the applicant is a FOREIGN NATIONAL does not meet the qualifications as the provisions of article 51 paragraph (1) along with a letter of explanation, so that the applicant is a FOREIGN NATIONAL has no legal position (legal standing) in a quo. " 33. That the aforesaid legal considerations highly inappropriate if used as a pretext to reject the legal standing of the applicant a quo, because between the article on test in application numbers 2-3/PUU-V/2007 13 with a quo had differences in procedural stage, namely the stage of the verdict and the stages of the investigation; 34. That in consideration of the above law, in particular the letter b, which States that a FOREIGN NATIONAL can legal efforts in the form of appeal, Cassation, and review, it can be done in terms of the provisions of the criminal to death, because death is one of the criminal form of pemidanaan in the Court ruling, but which need to be noticed in this permohoanan is that that is a staple issue of this appeal is the provisions on extradition are regulated in article 34 the letter b Article 35, paragraph (1), and article 39 paragraph (4) of the extradition ACT, Extradition Court Assignment menegenai instead, so that the two things are two different things; 35. That the existence of the detention without limits and the implementation of extradition that have no legal certainty that occurred on the applicant, is not happening because of a wrong application of the law by the authorities (investigators and prosecutors), but because it is expressly provided for in Article 34 of the letter b, article 35, paragraph (1) and article 39 paragraph (4) of the extradition ACT. This shows that indeed ketentuannyalah that authorize the apparatus to perform acts that violate HUMAN RIGHTS; 36. That against detention without limit of time based on Article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of the ACT on extradition cannot be made legal for Pretrial effort Article 1 point 10 of article 77 and the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE States, "Pretrial is authorized the District Court to examine and disconnected according to the manner provided for in this Act, on: a. valid or whether a detention or arrest and at the request of the suspect or his family or to the other party upon the power of the suspect; b. legitimate or whether termination or termination of the investigation at the request of prosecution for the sake of tegaknya law and justice; c. request damages or rehabilitation by the suspect or his family or another party over the matter power not submitted to the Court ".


14 where the substance of the pemeriksaannya more on whether the detention is carried out in accordance with or not, whereas if the linked to article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT, then can not serve as Pretrial "remedy" for his detention indefinitely against the applicant. Therefore, it is not possible remedy against the actions taken on the basis of the Act, other than by requesting testing done against such legislation; 37. That based on the above reasons, then it is reasonable for the applicant to say that the existence of Article 51 paragraph (1) a COURT, then the ACT of foreign nationals being has no chance to fight for the interests of the law. Whereas the right to obtain recognition and equal treatment before the law, is a constitutional right granted by the Constitution to any person who resides in the Republic of Indonesia, including foreign citizens; B. Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT is contrary to Article 28I paragraph (1) of the Constitution on the rights to admit as a person before the law, which is one of the fundamental human rights which cannot be reduced (non-derogable rights) 38. That Article 28I paragraph (1) MID 1945 States: "the right to life, the right not to be tortured, the right of freedom of conscience, thought and religious right, the right not to be enslaved, the right to be recognized as a person before the law, and the right not to be prosecuted based on retroactive law is a human right that cannot be reduced within any circumstances"; 39. That the right to be recognized as a person before the law is a human right which can not be reduced under any circumstances (a non-derogable right); This is in accordance with article 16 of the International Covenan on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (vide Evidence P-4) which States, "Everyone shall have the rights to recognition everywhere u.s. person before the law". Where the word "everyone" and "everywhere" is an affirmation that the right to be recognized as a private in the 15th before the law is applicable to all human beings, wherever the human being; 40. That Indonesia has ratified the ICCPR rnelalui Act No. 12 of 2005 about the ratification of the ICCPR, which means that Indonesia should abide by and implement all the provisions set forth in the ICCPR, as mentioned in article 2 paragraph (1) of the ICCPR which States, "each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant , without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status "; 41. That Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT that limit foreign nationals to apply for a judicial review against a test Act, is a form of "tort" performed by Country Indonesia over its obligations to comply with and implement the provisions set forth in Article 4 ICCPR and article 28I paragraph (1) of the Constitution, which is about the right to be recognized as a person before the law especially those rights in article 28I paragraph (1) of the Constitution , included in the rights that can not be reduced under any circumstances. Whom therefore, was supposed to do a test materially against Article 51 paragraph (1) letter a LAW COURT or at least done the extension of the meaning of the above provisions of article; C. Detention extension of Authority contained in article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of law No. 1 of 1979 is contrary to article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution of 1945 concerning the State of the law (Rechtstaat) 42. That Article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of law No. 1 of 1979 reads: Article 34 "Detention ordered under article 25 repealed, if: a. ... etc;

16 b. already running salama thirty (30) day kecuall if extended by a court at the request of the Prosecutor; c .... etc; " Article 35 "(1) the period of detention referred to in article 34 the letter b every time can be extended by thirty (30) day". 43. That article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution states, "the State of Indonesia is a country of laws"; 44. That Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshidiqie, S.H. mentions there are 13 (thirteen) basic principle is the main pillars supporting stand tegaknya a modern State, so it can be referred to as a State law (The Rule of Law or Rechtstaat) in the actual sense, among which is the principle of the protection of human rights in the explanation stated, "... Each human being from birth bears rights and obligations which are human and babas. The formation of the State and so are the organizing authority of a country should not diminish the sense or meaning of the freedom of humanitarian rights it. Therefore, the protection of and respect for human rights was a very important pillar in any country that is referred to as a State of law. If in a country, human rights are neglected or violated deliberately caused suffering and could not be corrected in a fair manner, then the State concerned could not be referred to as the State of the law in a real sense ". (Prof. DR. Jimly Asshidiqie., S.H.; The Constitutional Court and State law: a reflection of the implementation of the powers of the Judiciary Post Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945, of stuff. 15). Source: http://www. Pemantauperadilan.com/opini/30.Mahkamah% 20Konstitusi% 20Dan% 20Cita% 20Negara% 20Hukum% UR20Indonesia.pdf the opinion of former judges of the Constitution clearly states the need for the protection and recognition of human rights by a State, in order that these countries might be described as a State of law. Therefore, Indonesia which is expressly in article 1 paragraph (3) of the Constitution declare Indonesia as the country's law, was supposed to provide protection and recognition of the rights of every person residing in the territory of the country of Indonesia; 45. That Article 34 Letter b of the ACT stating the existence of Extradition the Prosecutor the authority to extend the period of detention, abuse of authority is the occurrence of potentially surely came. What if refers to Article 36 paragraph (2) of the Extradition ACT States, "the President can decide whether a person in extradition," it is not impossible if the extradition was made as a means of politics. If this happens, then that happens next is Indonesia will become State power (Machtstaat) and not State Law, as stated in article 1 paragraph (3) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 46. That Article 35 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT which allows doing extension of detention without a clear and definite boundaries, obviously very violating the principle of the protection of human rights, which is one of the principles of State law; 47. That then if connected with article 35 paragraph (2) of the extradition ACT, which mentions the reasons for extension of the detention period, as follows: a. the existence of the Court regarding the assignment has yet to request extradition; b. required information by the Minister of Justice as meant in article 36 paragraph (3); c. extradition requested by other countries and the President has yet to give its decision; d. extradition request had already been granted, but not yet implemented, shows that the desired by Act No. 1 of 1979 was more directed to the effectiveness of the extradition process than extradition process efficiency. In his paper, Prof. Dr. Romli Atmasasmita. stated, "Both the extradition model each have specific legal weaknesses and strengths. The first model, concerned with the issue of the extradition process efficiency by incorporating the interests of the rights of the suspect/accused/convicted person as an important part of the process of extradition, namely by placing the suspect/accused/convicted person as


18 "law", and the country was only a facilitator of esktradisi. The second model is whereas, concerned with the effectiveness of the extradition process with "disregard" of the interests of the rights of the suspect/accused/convicted person, by placing the suspect/accused/convicted person as "objects" of an extradition process. The first model, the final decision makers in the process of extradition is at the Court's verdict; whereas the second model, the final decision makers in the process of extradition is the President as head of State. Politically, the first model of the Iebih benefit of a country, in a sense will not be vulnerable to political pressure other countries, whereas the second model instead. In other words, the first model, it is very relevant and in line with the development of the modern law of the 21st century especially the protection of human rights and uphold the rule of law and the principle of "state-sovereignity." Whereas the second model, it is not in line with the development of the modern law of the 21st century and prone to rights abuses of the suspect/accused/convicted person, and weaken the rule of law as well as strengthening against the principle of "state sovereignty." (presented in the seminar, "the necessity of the change of Act No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition" organized by the Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia, on 27 November 2007 in Jakarta) Source: http://www.legalitas.org/? q = node/369; 48. a second model that the application in the process of extradition in Indonesia, clearly visible in article 36 paragraph (2) of the extradition ACT, which States, "after receiving a determination the Court along with the considerations referred to in subsection (1), then the President can decide whether someone diekstradisikan ' '; Then reaffirmed in paragraph 7 of the general explanation of the extradition ACT, which States, "a decision on the request for extradition is not a judicial agency decision but it is the decision of the Executive Body, therefore, on the extent of tarakhir lies in the hands of the President, following the advice of juridis carried the Minister of justice based on the assignment court '';

19 when linked with explanations, Prof. Dr. Romli Atmasasmita above, then the process of extradition in Indonesia that more emphasis on effectiveness, uncertainty is the process that ignores human rights and because of that, then the extension of the detention and the reason for extension of the detention period as mentioned in article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of law No. 1 of 1979, can be ascertained is contrary to one of the principles of State law , i.e. the principle of the protection of human rights. This means, opposed also by article 1 paragraph (3) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; D. extension of Detention contained in article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of law No. 1 of 1979 is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945 49. That Article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT, which governs about extension of detention, did not provide a clear explanation and certainly about the detention extension of limits can be imposed against a person who underwent the process of extradition. This is of course contrary to the principle of legal certainty which is mandated in section 28D subsection (1) of the Constitution, which States, "everyone has the right to the recognition, protection and assurance of legal certainty are fair and equal treatment before the law ''; The principle of legal certainty it needs to uphold high considering Indonesia as a State law, as stated expressly in article 1 paragraph (3) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 50. That the vagueness and uncertainty of law and Pasai 34 Letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT, clearly visible in the Overview and explanation of article 34 the Extradition ACT letter b. In paragraph 10 of the General Description mentioned that, "Regarding the detention conditions in the applicable criminal procedure law of Indonesia", and then in the explanation of article 34 the letter b, mentioned that "Detention during the 30 (thirty) days referred to in subsection b covers the detention by police of Republic of Indonesia and the detention by the Attorney General in accordance with the criminal procedure law of Indonesia. Where necessary, the Prosecutor may request an extension to the Pengadiian. This is an exception to the Criminal Procedure Law 20 (lex specialists), given that the problem of extradition should be resolved quickly "; This raises the vagueness and uncertainty of hukurn, due to the same process imposed two conditions at the same time. First, is the provision in the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE; and second, is the provision in the extradition ACT itself. Then which of the following terms should be used? The lack of certainty of this sort end cause terlanggarnya the rights of legal certainty, as stated by article 28D paragraph (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 51. That the phrase "the extradition issue should be resolved quickly" poses a problem of its own. This is important, because each process or regulation have the size and different criteria over the meaning of the word "fast". As an example and comparison, we can refer to several laws, such as Act No. 2 of 2004 concerning the completion of the Industrial relations Dispute, to the examination quickly arranged expressly in section 98 subsection (2), which States, "in a period of 7 (seven) working days after receipt of the application referred to in subsection (1), the Chairman of the District Court issued its determination about the granted or not dikabulkannya the petition"; As for in Act No. 51 of 2009 juncto Act No. 5 of 1986 on The State Judicial examination, the event quickly arranged expressly in section 98 subsection (2), which States, "Court Chairman within fourteen days after receipt of the petition, as in intention under subsection (1) removing the stipulation about granted or not dikabulkannya the petition"; Then what is a "matter of extradition must be resolved quickly," according to an explanation of article 34 the letter b? What are the restrictions "should be resolved quickly"? The lack of clarity and certainty which then have to be straightened out, because the result is not clear and not the exact settings of the extradition process, inevitably will result in impact to the legal uncertainty over the 21 detentions should be lived by a person who will be extradited; 52. That detention problems indefinitely in the process of extradition, extradition processes occur in a pemah against Robert James McNeice, a citizen of New Zealand who were detained since August 15, 2008 to April 23, 2010 or during less Iebih 600 (six hundred) days; 53. That the length of the detentions caused the existence of the South Jakarta District Court Assignment number 01/PID/c./2009/PN. Jkt. Cells., 23 July 2009 which sets (vide Evidence P-8): 1. Granting the petition for the extradition of the public prosecutor; 2. assign the extradition of the respondent Robert James Mc Neice aka Robert Mc Neice aka Mc NEICE to be extradition to Australia; 3. States the documents submitted by the Government of Australia handed back to the Ministry of Justice and human rights; 4. Set the ldentitas card on behalf of Robert James Mc Neice aka Robert Mc Neice aka Mc Neice kept by the public prosecutor until the process of Presidential Decree against the extradition request is completed; 5. Set the Respondent remained in detention until his extradition with the establishment of the President's Decision against the extradition request; 6. Charge the fees to the State amounting to nil; " Where the result of the absence of any arrangement regarding the time limit for the establishment of a presidential decree and coupled with the provision of article 34 of the existence of the letter b and Article 35 paragraph (1) of the extradition ACT which authorized the Prosecutor to always ask for an extension of the detention period, then the add uncertainty about the length of detentions; 54. That in the absence of legal certainty in the provision of article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of law number 1 Year I979 then clearly the article contrary to the provisions of article 28D paragraph (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; E. Provisions of the detention and the extension of the period of detention as provided by article 34 the letter b and article 35 paragraph (1) of law No. 1 of 1979 has been replaced with


22 the provisions of Act No. 8 of 1981 on the law of criminal procedure (CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE) 55. That the provisions of article 34 the letter b and article 35 the extradition ACT have in common with the provision of article 83C paragraph (4) which States, ' HIR ' Except in the case specified in section 83J subsection (2), then the orders referred to in the first paragraph may not be valid for longer than thirty days, counted from the day the order was executed. During the examination has not yet exhausted the claim District Attorney orders can be extended by the Chairman of the District Court, each time with thirty days, if after the completion of connection it needs to be weighed by the Chairman of the Court "; In the explanation mentioned that: "his light as follows: under article 72 and article 65 detention only until 20 days only. According to paragraph (1) of Section 83 of the letter c, then in May the things being examined cannot be confronted the Court in kemuka traveled 20 days, then the head of the District Attorney or the Attorney can give commands so that a suspect detained continues, and the continuation of the detention is valid no longer than 30 days (warrant of detention model of S. I). Prosecutor demands upon the head or the Attorney 30 days it can be dialled by the Chairman of the District Court, each time with a 30-day (warrant detention model URS.VI) "which at the time was formed and the promulgation of Act No. 1 of 1979, HIR is still valid as legal guidance in the event, however, the current provisions of the Law relating to HIR criminal procedure has been abolished and replaced by Act No. 8 of 1981 on the law of criminal procedure (CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE); 56. That Section 284 subsection (2) of the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE States, "within two years after the legislation is enacted, then against all things into effect the provisions of this Act, with the exception for a while regarding the special criminal procedure as such on certain legislation, until there is a change and or declared not valid anymore".

23 in the explanation Section 284 subsection (2) of the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE in limitatif determine about the definition of "special provisions of criminal procedure" and stated as follows: "what is meant by the special provisions of criminal procedure as such on certain legislation special provisions of criminal procedure is as follows: 1. The law on Investigation, Prosecution and the judiciary in economic criminal act (Act No. 7 Drt in 1955); 2. The law on the eradication of criminal acts of corruption (law number 3 of 1971). With a note that all special provisions of criminal procedure as such on certain legislation would be reviewed, amended or repealed in the shortest-in a nutshell. " Since Act No. 1 of 1979 were not included in the "special provisions of criminal procedure" which is the exception and section 284 subsection (2) of the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, then it automatically tetentuan the provisions in Act No. 1 of 1979 relating to the law, enacted provisions that are set in the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. 57. That in paragraph 9 and paragraph 10 of the general explanation of the extradition ACT States, "when there are urgent reasons, prior to the extradition request is submitted, the competent authority in Indonesia can hold while the person who sought the top pennintaan State peminta"; Regarding the detention of it applies the provisions of the law of criminal procedure Indonesia. When a request for extradition is not submitted inappropriate, then the person is liberated "; This reaffirms that the detention procedure in the process of extradition is based on conditions with regulated in the CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. Therefore, the mechanism of the detention is regulated in Act No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition have been removed and replaced with containment mechanisms that have been set forth in Act No. 8 of 1981 on the law of criminal procedure (CODE of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE).

24 f. Terms about the process of implementing the extradition as provided for by article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979 is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945 58. That Article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979 stated, "in terms of the extradition request as referred to in paragraph (1) was approved, then the President ordered the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Indonesia Iebih advanced process just as there are extradition treaty between the Republic of Indonesia with peminta"; 59. That the sentence "just as there are extradition treaties", giving rise to a confusion in between Peminta and the Government of Indonesia has been no extradition treaty, so should follow the process as provided for in the existing extradition treaty, extradition treaty which should be used? 60. That until now, Indonesia has had an extradition treaty with 7 (seven) countries, namely (vide Evidence P-9): 1) Malaysia, ratified by Act No. 9 of 1974; 2) Philippines, ratified with the Uncling number 10 in 1976; 3) Thailand, ratified by Act No. 2 of 1978; 4) Australia, ratified by Act No. 8 of 1994; 5) Hong Kong, ratified by Act No. 1 of 2001; 6 the Republic of Korea), ratified by Act No. 42 of 2007; and 7) Singapore, has not been ratified. 61. That each extradition treaty, extradition of settings have varied. For example, in the extradition treaty between the Government of Malaysia with the Government, there is a provision that stated, Article 11 Simplified Extradition When a person sought advises a court or other competent authorities of the Requested Party that the person consents to an order for extradition being 25 made, the Requested Party shall take all necessary measures to expedite the extradition to the extents ' permitted explosives under its laws. " Then in the extradition treaty between the Government with the Government of Thailand who stated, Article 13 Procedure The procedure with regard to extraclition and the provisional arrest of the person requested to be extradited shall be governed solely by the law of the requested Party. Where both the extradition treaty stated clearly and definitely that the extradition process is carried out by the requested State provisions. However, these provisions are not found in the extradition treaty between the Government of Indonesia with the Government of Australia that are set in the Treaty on extradition between the Government of Indonesia with the Government of Australia is simply limited to procedure the inclusion of documents which stated as follows: Article 11 Extradition Procedures and Required Documents 1. A request for extradition shall be made in writing and shall be communicated through the diplomatic channel. All documents submitted in support of a request for extradition shall be authenticated in accordance with Article 13. 2. The request for extradition shall be accompanied: (a) .... etc; (b) .... etc; (c) .... etc; (d) .... etc; (e) .... etc; (f) .... etc; 3. To the extents ' permitted explosives by the law of the Requested State, extradition nay be granted of a person pursuant to the provisions of this Treaty notwithstanding that the requirements of paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of this Article 26 have not been complied with provided that the person sought consents to an over for his extradition being made. 4. The documents submitted in support of a request for extradition shall be accompanied by a translation into the language of the Requested State. " 62. That in some extradition treaty which has been ratified by Indonesia, there is explicitly set on the length of time a temporary detention, but setting the length of temporary detentions in every extradition treaty the matter vary, for example:-. Extradition treaty Indonesia-Malaysia, temporary detention is carried out for a period of 20 (twenty) days; -. Extradition treaty Indonesia-Philippines, temporary detention is carried out for a period of 20 (twenty) days; -. Indonesia-Thailand extradition treaty, temporary detention is carried out for a period of 20 (twenty) days; -. Australia-Indonesia extradition treaty, temporary detention is carried out for a period of 45 (forty five) days; -. Extradition treaty Indonesia-Korea Republic, while detention is carried out for a period of 45 (forty five) days. and then the Model Treaty On Extradition on the basis of the number of UN General Assembly resolution 45/116, on 14 December 1990 stating that the duration of temporary detention period should not be more than 40 (forty) days, as well as the European Convention On Extradition (proof of P-10), which in this case has been ratified by Romania in 1997, also stated that temporary detention may not be more than 40 (forty) days. This suggests that the absence of legal certainty regarding the length of provisional detention period; 63. That distinction with extradition arrangements in each extradition treaty, be the onset of legal uncertainty against an extradition process that is not grounded by the extradition agreement. For being unclear and uncertain about the extradition treaty that will be used as guidelines in the process; 64. That the existence of the provision in the extradition treaty that States to use the provisions of the State requested, in this case Indonesia, then


27 surely would be major works return to the provisions of article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979 that increasingly expresses the existence of vagueness and uncertainty rule on extradition; 65. That in the absence of legal certainty in the provision of article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979, then clearly the article contrary to the provisions of article 28D paragraph (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945. V. PETITUM based on the things above, we ask to the Constitutional Court to check and disconnect the application pengujuan the Act is as follows: 1. Accept and grant the entire application testing statutes of the applicant; 2. Declares Article 51 paragraph (1) letter a Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court is contrary to the Constitution, in particular Article 28D and 28I paragraph (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 3. Declares Article 51 paragraph (1) letter a Act No. 24 of 2003 about the Constitutional Court does not have the force of law that bind with all its legal consequences; 4. Declares Article 34 the letter b, article 35, paragraph (1) and article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition is contrary to the Constitution, particularly article 1 paragraph (3) and article 28D paragraph (1) of the CONSTITUTION of 1945; 5. Article 34 States the letter b, article 35, paragraph (1) and article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition does not have the force of law that bind with all its legal consequences; 6. Order the loading of this ruling in the news of the Republic of Indonesia. Or if the Tribunal Judges the Constitution holds other, please seadil-fair Award (Ex Aequo et Bono) [2.2] considering that to corroborate evidence if possible, the applicant has submitted written evidence marked evidence of P-1 to P-9 with evidence, as follows: 28 1. Proof of P-1: photocopy of Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court; 2. Proof of P-2: photocopies of Act No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition; 3. Proof of P-3: a photocopy of the letter Number Police SP. Kap/65/XII/2009/Recorded II Eksus; 4. Proof of P-4: a photocopy of the letter Number Police SP. Han/37/XII/2009/Recorded II Eksus; 5. Proof of P-5: photocopy of Letter Number 411/PO/XII/2009/59/08, dated December 9, 2009 and the Embassy of Romania's diplomatic Note the number 1145 14 December 2009; 6. Proof of P-6: Photocopying the determination of District Court Number 377/Pen. Pid/2010/PN. Jkt-Cells; 7. Proof of P-7: Photocopying International Covenan on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR); 8. Proof of P-8: Photocopying of South Jakarta District Court Assignment number 01/PID/c./2009/PN. Jkt. Tue, 23 July 2009; 9. Proof of P-9: Photocopying extradition treaty between Indonesia with Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, Australia, Hong Kong and the Republic of Korea. 10. Proof of P-10: photocopy of the United Nations Model Treaty On Extradition. [2.4] considering that to shorten the blurb in this ruling, everything that happened in the trial was appointed in the news events of the trial, and it is a unity that can not be separated by this ruling; 3. LEGAL CONSIDERATION [3.1] considering that the goal and purpose of the petition is the test of article 51 paragraph (1) of Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 98 in 2003, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4316, hereinafter referred to as the ACT of the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT) and article 34 the letter b, article 35 paragraph (1) and article 39 paragraph (4) of law No. 1 of 1979 on Extradition (State Gazette of Republic of Indonesia in 1982, number 2 Additional Sheets, the Republic of Indonesia Number 3130, hereinafter referred to as ACT 1/1979) of the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 (hereinafter the Constitution);

29 [3.2] considering that before assessing the subject matter of the petition, the Constitutional Court (hereinafter the Court) in advance would consider two things, namely: 1. The authority of the Court to examine, judge, and break the petition a quo; 2. The position of the law (legal standing) the applicant, in particular the legal standing of foreign citizens (FOREIGNERS) to invoke the test act against the CONSTITUTION of 1945; Against both, the Court held as follows: the authority of the Court [3.3] considering that one of the powers of the Court under article 24C paragraph (1) of the Constitution and article 10 paragraph (1) letter a Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 98 in 2003, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4316, hereinafter referred to as ACT MK) juncto Article 29 paragraph (1) letter a Act No. 48 in 2009 about the Power of Justice (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number in 2009 157, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5076) is to examine legislation against the Constitution; [3.4] considering that the application for a quo is about testing legislation in casu Law 24/2003 and ACT 1/1979 against the Constitution, so that the Court is authorized to inspect, judge, and break the petition a quo; The position of the law (legal standing) the applicant [3.5] considering that on the basis of the provisions of article 51 paragraph (1) of the ACT the COURT along with his explanation, which can apply for testing legislation against the Constitution is the party that assumes the rights and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of the Act, that is: a. an individual (including a group of people who have the same interests) citizen of Indonesia; b. the unity of Community law all still alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principle of the unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia regulated in legislation; c. a public or private legal entities; or 30 d. State institutions; [3.6] considering that the Applicant therefore, Nicolae Popa, Romania, citizens is not a citizen of Indonesia then the court first consider the position of the law (legal standing) Claimant to apply for testing legislation against the CONSTITUTION of 1945; Considering that about the position of the law (legal standing) of the applicant, the Court refers to Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT stating, "the applicant is a party which considers the right and/or authority konstitusionalnya harmed by the enactment of the Act, namely: a. the individual citizen of Indonesia; b. the unity of Community law all still alive and in accordance with the development of society and the principle of the unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia regulated in legislation; c. a public or private legal entities; or d. the State institutions "; a later court ruling upheld in numbers 2-3/PUU-V/2007, dated 30 October 2007, among others consider: "a. of article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT along with the explanation is very firm and clear (expressis verbis) States that individuals are entitled to apply for testing legislation against the Constitution (which means it has the constitutional rights given by the Constitution) is only Indonesia Citizen (WNI) whereas foreign citizens (FOREIGNERS) are not eligible; b. No question a FOREIGN NATIONAL in dimungkinkannya the legislation of the Republic of Indonesia does not mean that the FOREIGN NATIONAL did not receive legal protection according to the principle of due process of law ...; c. Explanation of article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT about "individual" includes the Group of people who have the same interests must be associated with the sound of Article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT, "the individual citizen of Indonesia", so more information after there is an explanation of article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT must be read in the COURT, "individuals include people who have the same interests of the citizens of Indonesia". Thus, the applicant as a foreign citizen (FOREIGNERS) do not qualify as provisions of article 51 paragraph 1 letter a of the ACT the COURT along with 31, so that Applicant Penjelasanya as foreign citizens (FOREIGNERS) have no legal position (legal standing) in a quo; " [3.7] considering that the court nonetheless held that foreign nationals, such as the applicant in the application for a quo, has no legal position (legal standing) to apply testing legislation against the CONSTITUTION of 1945; [3.8] considering that the Applicant therefore has no legal position (legal standing) to apply for a quo, then staple the petition not be considered; 4. CONCLUSION based on the above assessment of the facts and the law, the Court concluded that: [4.1] the Court is authorized to inspect, judge, and break the petition a quo; [2.6] the applicant has no legal position (legal standing) to apply for a quo; [4.3] the subject matter of the petition is not considered. Based on the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in 1945 and considering Act No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 98 in 2003, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 4316), and Act No. 48 in 2009 about the Power of Justice (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia year 2009 Number 157, an additional Sheet of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5076). 5. AMAR'S RULING Judge, declared inadmissible the applicant's application. The case was decided in the meeting of the provisional Judges, attended by eight Justices the Constitution namely the US, Moh. Mahfud MD, as Chairman of the


32 concurrently Member, Achmad Sodiki, Muhammad Alim, m. N Deputy Mochtar, Hamdan Zoelva, Maria Farida Indrati, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi and Harjono, each as a member on a Wednesday date in February twenty-three years two thousand eleven, and is spoken in the plenary session of the Constitutional Court are open to the public on Monday the twenty eight February two thousand eleven years by seven Judges of the Constitution , i.e., the Moh. Mahfud MD, as the Chair of the sitting member, Achmad Sodiki, Muhammad Alim, m. N Deputy Mochtar, Hamdan Zoelva, Maria Farida Indrati, and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, each as members, assisted by Eddy Purwanto as Substitute Clerk, attended by the applicant/power, Government or representing, and the House of representatives or representing. Chairman, ttd. MOH. Mahfud MD, members of ttd. TTD. Acmad Sodiki Muhammad Alim ttd. TTD. HM. N Deputy Mochtar Hamdan Zoelva ttd. TTD. Maria Farida Indrati Ahmad Sumadi Fadlil CLERK of the SURROGATE, ttd. Eddy Purwanto 33

Related Laws