No Constitutional Problems, The Constitutional Court Rejects Lawsuits On The Authority To Extradition The Minister Of Law

Screenshot - Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani during (DOK ANTARA)

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) stated that there were no constitutional issues related to the position of Minister of Law and Human Rights as the main authority in the extradition process and mutual legal assistance (MLA).

This was conveyed in the consideration of the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 180/PUU-XXII/2024 which was read out by Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani during a plenary session at the Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Wednesday, July 30.

"The petitioners who questioned the central authority owned by the Minister of Law in dealing with extradition and MLA according to the Court is not a matter of norm constitutionality, but related to the legal policy of legislators," Arsul said as quoted by Antara.

This case was filed by five prosecutors, namely Olivia Sembiring, Ariawan Agustiartono, Rudi Pradissetia Sudirdja, Muh. Ibnu Fajar Rahim, and Yan Aswari, as well as an Indonesian citizen named Donalia Faimau who was once asked to be a witness in a criminal case of trafficking in persons.

They submitted a judicial review of a number of articles in two laws, namely Law Number 1 of 1979 concerning Extradition and Law Number 1 of 2006 concerning Balik Assistance in Criminal Problems. The essence of the petitioners' objection is that the main authority in the extradition process and MLA should be in the hands of the Attorney General, not the Minister of Law.

However, the Constitutional Court considers that the two laws have systematically regulated mechanisms, including the involvement of various institutions such as courts, Foreign Ministers, Attorney General, and National Police Chief before the President makes decisions on extradition requests.

"So there is no unilateral action or absolute power from the Minister of Law in carrying out extradition and MLA," said Arsul.

The Court assessed that the position of the Minister of Law as the main authority was administrative and did not interfere with the independence of law enforcement agencies.

"The position of the Minister of Law is not a form of interference with law enforcement, but the implementation of administrative functions in the executive domain," said Arsul.

In practice, the Minister of Law is tasked with coordinating, accepting, and submitting requests for legal assistance between countries before the decision is made by the President. The Minister also does not have the authority to determine mistakes, confiscate assets, or decide compensation for victims.

"The function is as an administrative bridge in international cooperation. Law enforcement is still carried out by the competent authorities according to procedural legal procedures," said Arsul.

Regarding changes to the nomenclature of ministries from the previous Ministry of Law and Human Rights, the Court considered that this would not erase the validity of authority that had been stipulated in the law.

The issue of the potential overlap between the Minister of Law and the Attorney General in the context of the restoration of cross-jurisdiction assets is also considered not a constitutional issue, but a matter of implementation and governance between agencies.

The Court also highlighted the importance of accelerating administrative processes in handling extradition and MLA, because it relates to the time limit for detention in criminal proceedings.

"The Minister of Law as a central authority is obliged to accelerate the administrative process as long as it meets the provisions of the legislation," said Arsul.

Based on all these considerations, the Constitutional Court stated that the petitioners' petition was groundless according to the law, and decided to completely reject the request.