The Invisible Constitution in Comparative Perspective

necessity imports the right of access to the court, is as near to an absolute 

right as any which I can envisage ... It has been described as a constitu-

tional right, though the cases do not explain what that means’.

7

5 

In addition to the cases discussed in this section, see Constitutional Court Decision 69/PUU-

II/2004, 137, para 3.10.1.

6 

Constitutional Court Decision 013/PUU-I/2003, 38. In the Soares case (2004), Justice Roestan-

di’s dissent listed the same minimum standards for a fair trial, albeit in a different order. He 

confirmed the importance of fair trials, describing them as ‘a mainstay of the rule of law’ (2004: 

62–3).

7 

Constitutional Court Decision 006/PUU-II/2004, 33 (emphasis in original).

---

304 

Simon Butt

10.2.3.  Due Process

The Court has also referred to due process being a component of the Negara 

Hukum.

8

 Although hardly stated with clarity, the ‘due process right’ appears 

to flow from the presumption of innocence. (The Court’s jurisprudence on 

the presumption of innocence is discussed later in this chapter. As mentioned 

previously, the Court appears to view the presumption as one of the five ele-

ments of a fair trial, which is an aspect of the Negara Hukum.) Apparently, the 

Court considers that a defendant not given an opportunity to defend himself 

or herself is presumed guilty.

The Court first considered this argument in the Broadcasting Law case 

(2003).

9

 In it, the applicants had objected to a provision that required broad-

casters to ‘correct’ broadcasts or news about which a complaint was made, 

regardless of whether the complaint had any foundation.

10

 The Court upheld 

the objection, deciding that a piece of news or broadcast is not proven to be 

untrue or mistaken merely because a complaint is made about it.

11

 The Court 

declared that no correction would be necessary if the broadcaster simply pub-

lished the objection:

Under the principle ‘cover both sides’, if there is an objection or complaint 

against a piece of news or a broadcast, then broadcasting the objection or 

protest itself is sufficient to fulfil the principle of ‘cover both sides’, unless 

there is other strong supporting evidence which accords with the principle 

of ‘due process of law’.

12

The Court stated that:

it would be extraordinary if a correction was made in response to an objec-

tion or complaint, indicating that the objection or protest was correct, but in 

court it was proven that the objection or protest was incorrect.

13

The Court concluded that to find otherwise would breach the Negara Hukum:

[T]he obligation to make a correction based on an objection or complaint sets 

aside the presumption of innocence . . . because it suggests that if a complaint 

8 

In addition to the cases discussed in this section, see the Praperadilan case (Constitutional 

Court Decision 21/PUU-XII/2014), 96–7, 100.

9 

Constitutional Court Decision 005/PUU-I/2003.

10 

The law stated that ‘broadcasters must make a correction if the contents of news or a broadcast 

are discovered to contain an oversight or mistake, or if a protest is made against the contents of 

news or a broadcast’.

11 

Constitutional Court Decision 005/PUU-I/2003, 83.

12 

Ibid.

, 83–4 (emphasis in original).

13 

Ibid.

, 84.

---

 

The Indonesian Constitutional Court 

305

or objection is made, the broadcast or piece of news is definitely wrong and 

that a correction must be made, and it is insufficient only to broadcast the 

objection or protest. The infringement of the presumption of innocence 

means a breach of the ‘due process of law’ and, therefore, is contrary to Article 

1(3) of the Constitution, which states that Indonesia is a Negara Hukum.

14

The Constitutional Court made similar comments in the PKI case (2003).

15

 

This case concerned Article 60(g) of Law 12 of 2003 on General Elections, 

which sought to prohibit from standing for election to the national or regional 

legislature candidates who had been members of any of a number of prohib-

ited organisations including the Indonesian Communist Party (