The Constitutional Court (MK) has criticised the construction of\ndeath penalty provisions in the revised Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP).\nConstitutional judges identified potential overlapping of authority\nbetween the judiciary and executive branches concerning the mechanism\nfor converting death sentences to life imprisonment after a probationary\nperiod.<\/p>\n
Executive Dominance in Judicial Matters<\/p>\n
Chief Justice Suhartoyo criticised the government\u2019s proposal placing\nthe President as the authority to change death penalty status based on\nconsiderations from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (MA).\nAccording to him, this risks conflating legal and political domains.<\/p>\n
\u201cFrom this perspective, who actually has the authority to convert a\ndeath sentence to life imprisonment? Because this is still a single\ncontinuum of a court ruling relating to the probationary period,\u201d said\nSuhartoyo during proceedings at the Constitutional Court building on\nMonday, 9 March.<\/p>\n
Suhartoyo emphasised that the ten-year probationary period is an\ninseparable component of the court\u2019s ruling. Therefore,\nconstitutionally, control over conversion of the sentence should remain\nwith the judiciary.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe judicial sphere should be primary, because this remains within\nthe context of a single ruling on a death sentence with a ten-year\nprobationary period,\u201d he stated.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, he cautioned that this arrangement should not suggest\nthat executive power overrides established legal process.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is space for presidential authority, but it should not appear\ninverted, as though the executive sphere is more dominant than the\njudicial process,\u201d Suhartoyo emphasised.<\/p>\n
Legal Theory Foundations Questioned<\/p>\n
Echoing Suhartoyo\u2019s concerns, Constitutional Judge Saldi Isra\nquestioned the philosophical and theoretical foundations employed by the\ngovernment in formulating the concept of conditional death penalty. He\ncontended that the government must present a deeper conceptual approach\nbeyond merely sociological reasoning.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is called a middle-ground concept in criminal law formulation.\nBut conceptually, what legal theory is used to justify this approach?\u201d\nasked Saldi.<\/p>\n
Saldi stressed that formulating criminal norms cannot be based solely\non adapting to societal conditions, but must be grounded in established\nlegal theory.<\/p>\n
\u201cBeyond the view that criminal law must adapt to societal conditions,\nwhat legal theory is conceptually used in formulating these criminal\nnorms? That requires explanation,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>\n
Clarity in this construction is deemed critical to ensure legal\ncertainty and prevent overlapping authority in Indonesia\u2019s sentencing\nsystem going forward.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-highlights-confusion-over-executive-authority-in-death-penalty-changes-1773122128", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }