Written By The DPR And The Government, The Constitutional Court Postpones The Material Test Session Of The ITE Law Proposed By Haris And Fatiah

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has postponed the follow-up trial of case judicial review Number 78/PUU-XXI/2023 proposed by Haris Azhar, Fatiah Maulidiyanti, the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), and the Indonesian Journalists Alliance (AJI).

The follow-up hearing with the agenda of hearing the statements of the DPR and the President was postponed because the MK clerk received a letter from the DPR and the government represented by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (HAM).

"Based on a letter from the DPR and the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, the case has been postponed," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman during a trial at the Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Wednesday, September 20, which was confiscated by Antara.

Anwar then asked for confirmation from the President's office regarding the letter of postponement of the follow-up trial. Then, the President's attorney confirmed this.

"Yes, that's right, Your Honor, because we are not ready to give a statement from the President based on an inter-power meeting. Thank you, Your Majesty," said the representative of the President's power.

Therefore, said the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, the judicial review hearing proposed by Haris, Fatiah, and friends will continue on Monday 9 September.

"Good, the DPR RI is the same. So, so, yes, the petitioners. This trial cannot be continued, for that the trial is postponed on Monday, October 9, 2023, at 11.00 WIB," said Anwar Usman.

However, before closing the trial, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court invited the applicant to speak.

Haris, as Petitioner I, asked the constitutional panel of judges to provide a context for considerations and the context of time related to the articles requested for judicial review.

According to him, this was to provide provisions for himself and Fatiah, who are currently defendants and are currently undergoing trial at the East Jakarta District Court (Jaktim) in the alleged defamation case of the Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan.

"It is important for me to request here to the Honorable Council to be able or able to provide context, not only on consideration but also in the context of time, so that it can be a provision for the process we are currently undergoing in the district court," said Haris.

Furthermore, he said the articles being tested were law material that had lost its historical context. For this reason, he hopes that the panel examines article material contextually and looks at the historical side of the article.

"The hope is that the democratic process, the process of freedom of expression is well maintained, but not disturbed either. On the one hand, there is a request not to be overused, but on the other hand, the users of freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution is also not threatened," he said.

In this case, the petitioners submitted a judicial review of Article 14 and Article 15 of Law (UU) Number 1 of 1946 concerning Criminal Law Regulations; Article 310 Paragraph (1) of the Criminal Code; and Article 27 Paragraph (3) in conjunction with Article 45 Paragraph (3) of Law Number 19 Year 2016 concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 Year 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transactions (UU ITE).

Haris and Fatiah, as applicants I and applicants II, considered that the articles being tested had harmed their constitutional rights because the existence of these articles hindered and criminalized them.

The position in question is the use of articles a quo as a tool to report or criminalize critical parties against state officials and government policies, "as quoted from the document for the improvement of the application for Case Number 78/PUU-XXI/2023 which was downloaded from the official website of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Wednesday.

Therefore, in the petitum in the subject matter of the case, the petitioners asked the court to state that all of these articles were contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) and did not have binding legal force.

In addition, the petitioners also submitted a petition for provisions, namely asking the court to accept and grant a request to order the East Jakarta District Court to stop and postpone the examination of cases that dragged Haris and Fatiah's names, until the judicial review at the Constitutional Court was decided.