Housewives From Lampung Sue The Child Protection Law

Screenshot of Constitutional Court Judge Prof. Enny Nurbaningsih

JAKARTA - A housewife from North Lampung Regency named Merry sued Article 76 H of Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection to the Constitutional Court (MK). "The petitioner is an Indonesian citizen who considers his constitutional rights to be harmed by the formation of Article 76 H of Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection," said the applicant's attorney, Gunawan at the trial of case Number 113/PUU-XX/2022 which was broadcast by the Constitutional Court virtually in Jakarta, Antara, Wednesday, November 23. To the panel of judges chaired by Prof. Enny Nurbaningsih, Gunawan conveyed the reason the applicant sued the law. Among them is the victim of Article 76 H of Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection which reads'everyone is prohibited from recruiting or caring for children for military or other purposes, and allowing children without life protection.' "So the reporter becomes a suspect and later becomes a defendant with Case Number 190/Pid.Sus/2022/PN Kbu," said Gunawan. Regarding the formal review of applicants, they feel that their constitutional rights have been harmed by the establishment of Article 76 H of Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection, including losses to obtain meaningful access to information in the process of forming Article 76 H. In addition, the petitioner considers that the formation of Article 76 H is not firm and unclear because the sentences and / or others in the article are considered multiple interpretations. This resulted in the applicant's right to actually develop his personal and social environment being harmed and not fulfilling personal rights, recognition, guarantees, protection, and fair legal certainty as well as equal treatment before the law. Then, related to material testing, the applicant also feels aggrieved by the applicability of Article 76 H of Law Number 35 of 2014 concerning Child Protection. The petitioner stated that the regulated article contradicts Law Number 9 of 1998 concerning Freedom of Expressing Opinions in Public.