The Constitutional Court conducted judicial review on Article 12 Sub-article C of Law No. 16 of 2004 regarding the Public Prosecutor’s Office (Public Prosecutor’s Office Law) against the 1945 Constitution, on Tuesday, April 24, 2007, at 10.00 Western Indonesia Time at the courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Jalan Medan Merdeka Barat No. 7, Central Jakarta. This Panel Hearing with an agenda of preliminary examination was chaired by Constitutional Justice H. Achmad Roestandi, with member Justices H.A.S. Natabaya and I Dewa Gede Palguna assisted by Substitute Registrar Alfius Ngatrin.

The aforementioned Panel hearing was only attended by Attorneys-In-Fact of the Petitioners, namely Yusri H. Palammai, S.H., Aliyas Ismail, S.H., and Anton Tofik, S.H.

The petitioners of the case, which was registered on Wednesday April 11, 2007 under the case number 10/PUU-V/2007, are H. Wahyudi, S.H (General Chairperson of NGO Indonesia Bersatu) and Endang Iskandar AR, BA (Secretary General NGO Indonesia Bersatu) with Attorneys-In-Fact Yusri H. Palammai, S.H., cs from Iriyanto-Yusri & Partners Law Office.

The Petitioners are of the opinion that Article 12 Sub-article C of Law No. 16 of 2004 regarding the Public Prosecutor’s Office which reads, “A Public Prosecutor shall be honorably discharged from his/her position when he/she reaches the age of 62 years old”, is contradictory to Article 23, Article 27 paragraph 1 and Article 28D paragraphs 1, 2, 3, of the 1945 Constitution because the provision o the age limit of 62 years has caused slow opening of job opportunities for the Petitioners as citizens, which lead to an impediment for the Petitioners to become Civil Servant (PNS). 

Therefore, the Petitioners requested the Panel of the Constitutional Court Justices to declare that Article 12 Sub-article C of Law No. 16 of 2004 regarding the Public Prosecutor’s Office is contradictory to Article 23, Article 27 paragraph 1 and Article 28D paragraphs 1, 2, 3, of the 1945 Constitution by declaring that the article concerned does not have binding legal effect. 

The Panel of the Court Justices is of the opinion that the legal standing of the Petitioners is not clear yet, whether as a Public Legal Entity or Private Legal Entity. In addition to that, the Petitioners’ grounds in file for this judicial review is also unclear due to the lack of narrations and argumentations described by the Petitioners in their dossier of petition. Prior to adjourning the court hearing, the Panel of Justices requested the Petitioners through their Attorneys-In-Fact to revise the petition so as to be more detailed and clear. (Mastiur Afrilidiany Pasaribu)