Jakarta – The legal fight challenging the appointment of Constitutional Court (MK) justice Patrialis Akbar has gained momentum following the arrest of the court's former chief justice, Akil Mochtar.
On Wednesday, a coalition of NGOs, including the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation (YLBHI), Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) and the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), submitted new evidence against Patrialis' appointment to the Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN).
The coalition said that Patrialis' appointment was illegal because the nomination process was opaque and shut out the public. The coalition submitted 30 new pieces of evidence to the panel of judges during the court hearing on Wednesday.
"Of the 30, two constitute primary evidence, which are videos. We have requested the panel of judges play the videos in the next session [Oct. 16]," YLBHI director of legal advocacy and campaigns Bahrain said.
Bahrain said that the first video contained a statement from Law and Human Rights Minister Amir Syamsuddin, who said that Patrialis had not been subjected to a fit-and-proper test, as he should have been. In the video, Amir said Patrialis had only been vetted by an "internal mechanism".
The statement contradicted that previously made by Patrialis, who said he had undergone a fit-and-proper test at the State Palace. The second video submitted for evidence depicted the government conducting a transparent process to select Constitutional Court justices in 2008 – a process that was not replicated in Patrialis' case.
Bahrain said that Patrialis' appointment had violated Article 19 of Law No. 24/2003 on the Constitutional Court, which stipulated that the names of Constitutional Court justice candidates should be made public to allow the public to monitor the process.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who made the appointment, inaugurated Patrialis as a Constitutional Court justice on Aug. 13. Patrialis had previously been dismissed from his position as law and human rights minister in a Cabinet reshuffle in 2011.
Akil replaced former justice Achmad Sodiki, whose tenure ended on Aug. 15. The coalition filed the lawsuit challenging the appointment on Aug. 12. Patrialis' lawyer, Ainul Syamsu, doubted if the plaintiffs had any legal standing to challenge his client's appointment.
"Our main concern is over the fact that the appointment did not bring any negative impacts on the plaintiffs, so why are they filing a lawsuit? We would understand if other court justices were the ones filing the suit because the appointment affects them, but not one of them has raised any concerns," Ainul said, adding that the appointment was the President's prerogative.
He denied the allegation that public participation was absent from the appointment process. "The appointment was supported by a number of social organizations and politicians. Of course, dissenting opinions are a normal part of this kind of thing." (hrl)