Universitas Patria Artha Patria Artha

Mengelola Perubahan Melalui Pendidikan dan Pelatihan

  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Artikel Reviewing Act on State Islamic Security Bond: Obscure Petitioner’s Legal Standing

Reviewing Act on State Islamic Security Bond: Obscure Petitioner’s Legal Standing

Surel Cetak PDF
Share

Panel Board of Justice (left to right) Harjono, Arsyad Sanusi, and Achmad Sodiki seriously paying attention to the explanation on the improved petition of Bastian Lubis who wished to review the Act on SISB, Monday (7/12), at The Court Panel Room. (Doc. CCRI/Annisa Lestari)Jakarta-MKOnline, The Constitutional Court (The Court) held a session for the review of Act Number 19 of 2008 about State Islamic Security Bond (Act on SISB), Monday (7/12), at The Court Panel Room. The case registered by The Court’s Registrar with Number 143/PUU-VII/2009 was submitted by a lecturer, Bastian Lubis.

The Petitioner had improved his Petition which previously demanded to review nine articles of the Act on SISB; Article 10 paragraph (1), Article 10 paragraph (2), and Article 10 paragraph (3), Article 11 paragraph (1), Article 11 paragraph (2), Article 11 paragraph (3), Article 11 paragraph (4), Article 12 paragraph (1) and Article 12 paragraph (2). "In the modified petition, we do not wish to review Article 12. They are only Article 10 paragraph (1) and (2) and Article 11 paragraph (1)," Bastian pointed out.

 

Bastian also modified the norms within The 1945 Constitution used as the ground. "As the Panel Board suggested, we do not use the entire norms. We only proposed two norms, yakni Article 28 H paragraph (2) and Article 34 paragraph (3)," he explained.

 

Responding to the modification made by the Petitioner, Head of Panel Board of Justice Arsyad Sanusi revealed that the Petitioner had not yet explained about the constitutional loss he experienced. "the constitutional loss that the Petitioner experienced would be the legal standing for the Petitioner. If it was not explained, the Petitioner’s legal standing would be obsecure," he reminded.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Harjono questioned the replacement petition which was technically incomplete. "In the modified petition, the Petitioner did not mention The Court’s authorities and the Petitioner’s legal standing, but straight to the substance of the Petition. Immediate modification (renvooi) had better be made to this modified Petition to make it complete," he suggested.

Harjono also demanded evidences on the possibility of unpaid debts as the Petitioner suspected. "Should there be unpaid debts in Indonesia, you have to prove it. Do not take Abu Dhabi case as a reference," he said.

The Panel Board of Justice legalized four evidences proposed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was also given time until 17.00 Western Indonesia Time that day (Monday) to improve the petition if the Petitioner wished to continue the case to the next session. (Lulu A./YDj tr.)

Sumber Berita:
http://www.mahkamahkonstitusi.go.id/index.php?page=website_eng.BeritaInternalLengkap&id=3504

Tambah Komentar


Kode keamanan
Segarkan

Terakhir Diperbaharui pada Sabtu, 23 Agustus 2014 12:20