The Constitutional Court conducted a trial on Article 30 Paragraph (1) letter d Act No. 16 Year 2004 on Attorney office Republic of Indonesia (Act on Attorney Office), Monday (17/12), at the Panel Court Room 4th floor of The Consitution Court Building with the Checking of Revision of The Petition as the agenda.

Petition No. 28/PUU-V/2007 was filed by Mrs. A. Nuraini and her husband, Major General. TNI (Purn) Subarda Midjaja with Their Legal Counsels Ahmad Bay Lubis, S.H., A.H. Wakil Kamal, S.H., dan Yanrino H.B. Sibuea, S.H. in their petition, the Petitioner felt that her rights are violated because of the existence of Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d Act on Attorney’s Office, which stated: ”Conducting an investigation on certain criminal action based by law”. According to the Petitioners, the fuction and the investigation authority of the Indonesian Attorney’s Office that relies on very uncommon regulation. This can be seen from various Acts related to the duty and function of law enforcement.

Because of the implementation of Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d Act on Attorney Office, The Petitioners argued that the fulfillment of their economic needs were obtructed because the husband was arrested by the Attorney General’s Office. “because of this, several business activities that had been started hardly by the Petitioner and her husband were ruined and could not be taken care of,” explained the Petitioner’s Legal Counsel in the previous trial.

In the Petitum read by The Legal Counsel, The Petitioner requested the Board of Constitution Justice to grant the Petitioner’s request and decide that the Article 30 Paragraph (1) letter d act on Attorney Office violated Article 1 paragraph (3) juncto Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) 1945 Constitution and hence did not have a bounding legal power.

In the revision of the petition, besides adding Subarda Midjaja as a Principal Petitioner, the petition file had been technically revised in term of the compilation systematic in order to make it easier to be read. “Besides that we have inserted the quotations from law experts related to the article we exercised,” explained the Petitioner’s Counsel.

Before closing the trial, Head of Justice Panel H. Achmad Roestandi, S.H. approved the evidences proposed by the Petitioners. (Wiwik Budi Wasito/Yogi Djatnika)