by adminicjr | 20/12/2016 10:25 am
The Criminal Code (“KUHP”) is the current legal framework for criminal law in Indonesia, which is originated from the Wetboek van Strafrecht voor Nederlandsch Indie (WvSNI). This legislation was ratified in Indonesia by Koninklijk Besluit (King’s Command) No. 33, dated 15 October 1915, and was entered into force on 1 January 1918. The WvSNI is a duplication the Wetboek van Strafrecht in the Netherlands, which was drafted in 1881 and entered into force in the country on 1886. Even though the WvSNI is a duplication of the Netherland’s WvS, the colonial government implemented the concordance principle for WvS in its occupied territories. This is the reason why makar (violent attack) articles under KUHP were originated from the WvSNI:
(translated by Muljatno)
|87||“Attempt to commit an violent attack” exist as soon as the intent of the perpetrator has revealed itself by a commencement of the performance according to Article 53.||87||Aanslag tot een felt bestaat, zoodra hetvoomemen des daders zich door een begin van uitvoering, in denzin van art 53. heeft geopenbaard|
|104||The attempt to commit violent attack undertaken with intent to deprive the President or Vice President of his life or his liberty or to render him unfit to govern, shall be punished by capital punishment or life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years||104||De aanslag ondernomen met het oogmerk om den koning, de regeerende Koningin of den Regent van het leven of devrijheid te berooven of tot regeeren ongeschikt te maken, wordt gestraft met de doodstraft of levenslange gevangenstraf of tjidelijke van ten hoogste twintig jaren|
|106||The attempt to commit violent attack undertaken with intent to bring the territory of the state wholly or partially under foreign domination or to separate part thereof, shall be punished by life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years||106||De aanslag ondernomen met het oogremek om het grondgibied van den staat geheel of gedeeltlijk omder vreemde heerschappij te brengen of om een deel daarvan aff te scheiden. Wordt gestraft met levenslange gevangeisstraft of tijdlr..van ten hoogste twinting jaem|
|107||(1) The attempt to commit violent attack undertaken with the intent to cause a revolution shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of fifteen years.
(2) Leaders and originators of an attempt referred to in the first paragraph shall be punished by life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years.
|107||(1) De aanslag ondernomen met het. Oogmerk oin omwenteling teweeg te brengen. wordt gestafct melt gevangenisstraf of tijdleke van ten hoogste vijftien jaren
(2) Leiders en aaleggers van een aanslag als in het eerste lid bedoeld. Worden gestraft met levenslange gevanngemisstraft of tujdekijke van ten hoogste twinting jaren.
|139a||The attempt to commit violent attack undertaken with intent to withdraw wholly or partially the territory or another area of a friendly state from the severeignty of the there established authority, shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of five years.||139a||139aDe aanslag ondernomen met het oogmerk om het grondgebied van een bevrienden staat geheel of gedeeltelijkte onttrekken aan de heerschappij van het aidaar gevestigd gezag. Wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraft van ten hoogse vijf jaren|
|139b||The attempt to commit violent attack undertaken with intent to destroy or to illegally alter the established form of government of a friendly state or another territory of a friendly state, shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of four years.||139b||De aanslag ondernomen met het oogmerk om den gevestigden regeeringsvorm van een bevrienden staat of van eenekolonie of ander gebiedsdeel van een bevrienden staat te vernietegen of op onwettige wijze te veranderen, wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraft van ten hoogste vier jaren|
|140||(1) The attempt to commit violent attack on the life or the liberty of a ruling king or another head of a friendly state shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of fifteen years.
(2) If the violent attack on said life results in death or is undertaken with premeditation, a life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years shall be imposed.
(3) If the violent attack on said life, undertaken with premeditation, results in death, the capital punishment or life imprisonment or a maximum imprisonment of twenty years shall be imposed.
|140||(1) De aanslag op het leven of de vrijheid van een regreeringvorm vorst of ander hoofd van een bevrienden saat wordt gestraft met gevangenisstraft van ten hoogste vijftien jaren.
(2) Indien de aanslag op het leven den dood ten gevolge heeft of met voorbedachten rade wordt ondermanen, wordt levenslange gevangenisstraft of tjidelijke van ten hoogste twinting jaren opglegd.
(3) Indien de aanslag op het leven met voorbedachten rade ondernomen den dood ten gevolge heeft, wordt de doodstraf of levenslange gevangenisstraf of tijdelijke van ten hoogste twinting jaren opgelegd
Articles related to aanslag are adaptation from the WsSNI and those articles have not been changed by the government after the implementation. The term “aanslag” which is an important word under these articles is translated into Indonesian language as “makar”. The problem lies in the fact that KUHP does not define aanslag. Therefore, the word “makar” causes unclarity of the objectives and formulation of Articles87, 104, 106, 107, 139a, 139b, and 140. The unclarity has blurred the basic definition of “aanslag”, which is more appropriate to be translated as “serangan” (attack) in Indonesian language.
Several references from criminal law experts also confirm this problem. Djoko Prakoso said that the word “makar” is a translation from “aanslag” that means “serangan” (attack). According to him, KUHP does not give the definition, but only authentic (specific) interpretation under Article 87 of KUHP. According to Lamintang, if is associated with the crime under Article 104 of KUHP, “aanslag” can only be defined as aanval (serangan/attack) or as misadadige aanranding (attack with bad purposes). Wirjono Prodjodikoro also uses the word “Makar” as the translation for “Aanslag”, which according to him is “serangan” (attack).
Further, Prof. Noyon and Prof.Langemeijer, stated that most “aanslag” are conducted in violent or at least attempting to be violent. If this word is examined more authentically, based on Memorie van Tolichting (MvT) of KUHP in the Netherlands, such definition has been asked by the Raad Van State (Council of State) when Article 104 of KUHP was formulated. In his response, Dutch Minister of Justice explained that “aanslag op de person” means “elke daad van geweld tegen de person” or violence towards a person.
Pursuant to the above paragraphs, if “aanslag” is translated as “makar” under KUHP without proper definition, then such formulation is not correct, due to the fact that “aanslag” should not be translated as “makar” in Indonesian language. For instance, “aanslag” in Dutch is a verb, while in Indonesian “makar” is an adjective. The word “makar” in Indonesian language is rooted from Arab language from etymology point of view. KBBI also gives the definition of “makar” as: 1) akal busuk; tipu muslihat, 2) perbuatan (usaha) dengan maksud hendak menyerang (membunuh) orang, dan sebagainya, 3) perbuatan (usaha) menjatuhkan pemerintah yang sah……”. Using this definition, the word “makar” has different notion compared to “aanslag” which explicitly means “serangan” (attack).
ICJR is of the view that, in crimes, the formulation of a crime must be based on the principle of clarity of purpose and clarity of formulation, which is part of the criminal law foundation that is legality. The issue with clarity of purpose and clarity of formulation is not only aiming to protect the citizens from the situation in which an action is not regulated clearly (whether or not it has been stipulated under a law), but also to make sure that law enforcers are not mistaken in enforcing the law or using the law arbitrarily beyond the purpose of the article.
Therefore, the use of the word “makar” as an interpretation of “aanslag” has created legal uncertainty, because the failure to interpret “aanslag” as “serangan” (attack). Due to the legal certainty in makar crime, the constitutional right that is guaranteed under Article 28G (1) of the 1945 Consitution, which states that “Every person shall have the right to protection of his/herself, family, honour, dignity, and property, and shall have the right to feel secure against and receive protection from the threat of fear to do or not do something that is a human right” is not fulfilled.
A shift in the meaning of “aanslag” as attack in the word “makar” caused the unclarity of the use of makar articles in the criminal trial. In several convictions made by prosecutors, they do not interpret “makar” as “serangan” (attack);
In the case of Sehu Blesman a.k.a Melki Bleskadit (Supreme Court Decision No. 574 K/Pid/2012), Melki was charged of committing makar because he was appointed as the Chairman of the Committee for the Anniversary of West Papua, which was interpreted as the motive to separate from Indonesia. In the conviction, the prosecutor failed to elaborate the element of “aanslag” or “serangan” (attack) properly, as it only explores the motive of the convict to separate from Indonesia. Melki was punished with 5 years of imprisonment.
In the case of Semuel Waileruny (Supreme Court Decision No. 1827 K/Pid/2007), Semuel was charged with conspiracy to commit makar, because he wanted to wave the South Maluku Republic’s flag, which is interpreted as an intention to separate from Indonesia. In the conviction, the prosecutor failed to elaborate the element of “aanslag” or “serangan” (attack) properly, as it only explores the motive of the convict to separate from Indonesia. Semuel was punished with 3 years of imprisonment.
In the case of Stepanus Tahapary a.k.a Stevi (Supreme Court Decision No. 2106 K/Pid/2008), the panel of judges charged Stevi with conspiracy to commit makar for keeping the documentation in the form of VCD and other documents regarding Maluku conflict, the Anniversary of South Maluku Republik, and flag ceremony of the South Maluku Republic. In the conviction, the prosecutor failed to elaborate the element of “aanslag” or “serangan” (attack) properly, as it only explores the motive of the convict to separate from Indonesia. Stevi was punished with 3 years of imprisonment.
In the case of Yakobus Pigai (Supreme Court Decision No. 1977 K/PID/2008), the panel charged Yakobus with “makar” articles, which means crime against the state. Yakobus was punished with 5 years of imprisonment, because he waved the Bintang Kejora flag, which is considered as “makar”. Neither the prosecutor or the judge included the element of “makar” as “serangan” (attack). The Supreme Court even simplified the action to wave Bintang Kejora flag as a crime against the state without explaining the element of “serangan” (attack).
In addition to the abovementioned cases, there are several court cases that are charged with makar articles that have similar characteristics, which are the lack of elaboration on “makar” as an attack by the prosecutor and the judge. It shows that the use of word “makar” has been shifted due to the interpretation of “makar” as “aanslag” or “serangan” (attack).
Without legal certainty and protection guarantee, as long as “makar” is not interpreted as “serangan” (attack), such word under Articles 87, 104, 106, 107, 139a, 139b, and 140 of KUHP contradicts Articles 28D (1) and 28G (1) of the 1945 Constitution.
The Institut for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR) requested the Constitutional Court to declare Articles 87, 104, 106, 107, 139a, 139b, and 140 of Law No. 1 of 1946 on Criminal Law (KUHP), contradict the 1945 Constitution, as long as it does not interpreted as “aanslag” or “serangan” (attack); to declare Articles 87, 104, 106, 107, 139a, 139b, and 140 of KUHP are not legally binding, as long as the word “makar” is not interpreted as “aanslag” or “serangan” (attack).
 Under Article VIII (12) Law No. 1 dated 26 February 1946, Official Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia II, the words “de regeeren de Koningin of den Regent” in the formulation of Article 104 of WvS above are replaced with the words “den president of den vice-President”, and therefore Article 104 of WvS or KUHP states: “De aanslag ondernomen met het oogmerk om den koning, den president of den vice-Presdient van het leven of devrijheid te berooven of tot regeeren ongeschikt te maken, wordt gestraft met de doodstraft of levenslange gevangenstraf of tjidelijke van ten hoogste twintig jaren”.
Source URL: https://icjr.or.id/unravelling-the-roots-of-makar-judicial-review-submission-on-makar-to-the-constitutional-court-16-december-2016/
Copyright ©2021 ICJR unless otherwise noted.