Visitor Counter:

Visitor Maps:

Visitor Tracker:

Saut Pangaribuan: Prof Romli"s statement has nothing to do with the Plaintiff"s request, not capacity!
Publish date: 07 Oct 2021, Author : fpesbsi

The Proxy Team for the Confederation of All-Indonesian Trade Unions (KSBSI) examines the expert"s statement from the Presidential Proxy for case 103 in the follow-up trial for the formal review of the Job Creation Law held by the Constitutional Court (MK) online, Thursday 9 September 2021.

Case number 103 is a case filed by KSBSI. In the trial, the Attorney of President Joko Widodo presented Prof. Dr. Romli Atmasasmita SH LL.M as Expert for case 103.

Prof Romli is an academician or professor in the field of Law, especially International Law at Padjadjaran University. He is also known as a criminal law expert. He is also a member of the Drafting Team for Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption and Law Number 30 of 2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Observing Prof Romli"s statement, KSBSI Legal Team Member Saut Pangaribuan said, Prof. Romli whom he knew was a criminal expert and this was reflected in his expert testimony at the trial.

Because in his statement, all explained about the crime. Kan explain about corruption.. yes. It has nothing to do with our petition at the Constitutional Court," said Saut Pangaribuan when met by KSBSI Media after the online trial at the KSBSI Headquarters, Cipinang Muara, East Jakarta, Thursday (9/9/2021).

"We are asking for a formal review of the formation of the law where the formation of the law is not in accordance with Law no. 12 of 2011 junto Law No. 15 of 2019. That"s what we want to ask. Actually, is the procedure for making the law in accordance with the existing law or not?” he said.

Saut admitted that he originally wanted to ask a question, but the question session to the Experts had been closed by the Court. What he wants to ask is, what is Prof Romli"s capacity to testify as an expert?

Saut Pangaribuan SH MH is a member of the KSBSI Legal Team. (Photo: Special).

“Because we know he (Prof Romli) Criminal Expert? Maybe later we will ask, if there is kidney disease in health, then we will ask for heart disease, in the end this will be the wrong consultation. The medicine is also wrong. If the medicine is wrong.. yes, the disease is not cured getting worse. For example, what is the wrong consultation and the wrong medicine? This Law (Creation of Work) was made by the Coordinating Minister for the Economy? It"s the wrong drug actually. Wrong consultation, wrong place. That"s what we have to ask the Experts." he explained.

Then, said Saut, is the formation of a law that violates Law No. 12 of 2011 junto Law No. 15 of 2019 appropriate? What are the legal consequences? "That must be emphasized," he said.

In his opinion, from a number of questions asked by the KSBSI Proxy, Saut argued, Prof Romli did not answer the questions correctly, however, Saut called it, Prof Romli only told about him participating in the making of PP (Government Regulation as a derivative of the Job Creation Law) and blah..blah..blah.. all kinds of things. However, the formal trial lawsuit does not stand alone, it is not only a lawsuit for case 103 but there are other lawsuits (cases no. 91, 105, 107, 4 and 6).

In addition to observing Prof Romli"s statement, Saut also examined the expert"s statement for case number 4, Turro Selrits Wongkaren SE MA Ph.D. An expert who holds a Master of Art (in Economics) from the University of hawaii-Manoa, and an expert on case number 6, Ahmad Redi as an Expert in Constitutional Law and Law Formation of Legislation, Environmental Law and Natural Resources Law.

Saut said that apart from Ahmad Redi, the two experts who were presented were not considered to have capacity as constitutional law experts. One is a criminal expert, the other is an economist. According to Saut, his expertise has nothing to do with this case, especially case 103.

"Indeed he (the expert) knows, but it is his skill capacity that must be questioned. If it is tried in another court, we can reject it," he said.

He was of the opinion that the expert testimony presented by the Presidential Proxy could not refute the arguments presented by the plaintiffs.

“This expert, from my point of view, cannot refute the arguments presented by the plaintiffs. It"s not just 103, but other things too." he said. [Source : REDHuge/KBB]