Constitutional Court Rejects Test of Presidential Amnesty-Abolishment Rights

DOK VOI

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has ruled that the material test case, which requests a clear limitation on the right to grant amnesty and abolition by the president, is not acceptable.

The court considered that the petitum of the applicants' application was drafted without mentioning the verses, articles, and/or parts of the law (UU) that the testing was requested, which caused the applications to be unclear or vague.

"Declaring the application with Number 262/PUU-XXIII/2025 is not acceptable," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo in the hearing to pronounce the verdict, reported by ANTARA, Friday, January 30.

In its legal consideration, the Court stated that the application for testing the material was a test concerning the material content in the verses, articles, and/or parts of the Law or the Government Regulation in Lieu of the Law (Perppu) which was considered to be in conflict with the Constitution of 1945.

This means that even if it has included the correct application systematics, the assessment of the formal completeness of an application does not only end at the systematics itself (stand-alone).

Based on various facts and legal considerations of each application, there is no doubt for the Court to declare the application unclear or vague (obscuur).

"Although the Court has the authority to try the quo applications, because the quo applications are unclear or vague or obscuur, the Court does not further consider the applicants' applications," said Deputy Chairman of the Constitutional Court Saldi Isra.

The request to provide clear limits regarding the right to grant amnesty and abolition by the president as regulated in Article 1 of the Emergency Law Number 11 of 1954 concerning Amnesty and Abolition, was submitted by a number of students.

The students are from the Faculty of Law, Muhammadiyah University of Bima, namely Sahdan, Abdul Majid, Moh. Abied, and Rizcy Pratama, through the trial of Law Number 262/PUU-XXIII/2025.

The applicants considered that the article was in conflict with Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Article 1 of the Amnesty and Abolishment Law states, "The President in the interest of the state may grant amnesty and abolition to persons who have committed a criminal act. The President grants this amnesty and abolition after receiving a written advice from the Supreme Court which conveys the advice at the request of the Minister of Justice."

The applicants acknowledge that the granting of amnesty, abolition, rehabilitation, and clemency by the president is a constitutional prerogative of the head of state, as stipulated in Article 14 of the 1945 Constitution.

However, according to them, the pardon or restoration of these rights raises problems in the form of actions that have the potential to expand the meaning of the norms of Article 1 of the Amnesty and Abolition Law.

Therefore, the applicants believe that the President must consider the opinion of the House of Representatives (DPR) in issuing the pardon. This is a form of check and balances so that there is no practice of arbitrariness.

In addition, the applicants also want a limit on amnesty and abolition can only be given for cases whose decisions have been inkrah. They want this regulation to be written clearly in the article norm.

Therefore, in the main request, the applicants ask the Court to interpret Article 1 of the Amnesty and Abolishment Act as "the President in the interest of the state can grant amnesty and abolition to people who have committed a criminal act whose judgment has become final (in force). The President granting this amnesty and abolition must really take into account the considerations of the Supreme Court and the DPR."