The Constitutional Court performed a session for judicial review of Law Number 16 Year 2004 regarding the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia on Monday (3/12) with an agenda of preliminary investigation

The civil case No. 28/PUU-V/2007 was filed by Mrs. A. Nuraini and her lawyers, Ahmad Bay Lubis, S.H., A.H. Wakil Kamal, S.H., and Yanriho H.B. Sibuea., S.H. In her petition, the Petitioner claims to have been harmed due to the coming into effect of Article 30 Paragraph (1) sub-paragraph d of the Public Prosecutor Law which reads: to conduct an investigation upon certain criminal acts based on the Law”. According to the Petitioner, the investigation functions and rights by the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia based on this provision are uncommon. We could see this from several laws in relation to the duties and functions of law enforcement.

Due to the application of Article 30 paragraph (1) sub-paragraph d of this Public Prosecutor Law, the Petitioner gives a reason that the fulfillment of the economic needs of the family has been hindered because here husband was arrested by Attorney General’s Office. “This arrest has made several business endeavors pioneered with hard work by the Petitioner and here husband become shattered and unorganized”, explained the Petitioner’s Attorney-In-Fact.

In the statement of claims of her petition, the Petitioner asked the Panel of Constitution Court Justices to grant the request of the Petitioner and to declare that Article 30 Paragraph 1 sub-paragraph d is in conflict with Article 1 paragraph (3) juncto Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28 D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and that it does not have any binding legal effect.

With respect to the explanation of the Petitioner’s Attorney, Constitutional Court Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, S.H., M.H. asked the Petitioner to provide a more systematized petition by inserting the sentence of Article 1 paragraph (3) sub-paragraph d of the Public Prosecutor Law. Secondly, in relation to the legal standing of the Petitioner, Constitutional Court Justice Palguna advised Petitioner to name her husband as the Principal Petitioner in this lawsuit. “Actually, the most suffering person with respect to the impairment shall be the person affected directly by this criminal act. The basis for constitutional impairment on the part of the wife is different from that of the husband. Even though the husband is arrested, the Petitioner’s attorney could still ask him to give an authorization to all of you”, advised Palguna to the Attorney of the Petitioner.

In line with Palguna, the Constitution Court Justice, Prof. Abdul Mukthie Fadjar S.H., M. S. advised the Petitioner to name her husband as the Principal Petitioner. Besides, Prof. Mukthie also emphasized whether the Petitioner petitions for judicial review of the entire Article 30 Paragraph (1) of the Public Prosecutor Law or particularly Article 30 paragraph (1) sub-paragraph d.

Based on the abovementioned suggestions from the Justices, the Attorney of the Petitioner confirmed that she would only petition for judicial review of Article 30 paragraph (1) sub-paragraph d of the Public Prosecutor Law. “We have made several revisions on our petition before the panel commences the hearing. However, the official who received the petition gave an advice that the revision should wait for the advice and guidance of the Justices in this court session”, explained the Petitioner.

Before closing the hearing the Chairman of the Panel of Justices, Lieutenant General TNI (Ret.) H. Achmad Roestandi S.H. gave a 14 days’ time for the Petitioner to revise the application. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)