The Constitutional Court conducted a trial on Act No. 16 Year 2004 on Indonesian Attorney (Act on Attorney), Thursday (17/01), at the Plennary Room of the Constitutional Court’s building. The trial was scheduled to hear the Information from the  Government, Parliament, and the Directly Related Parties, in this case, the Indonesian Police (Polri) and the Supreme Attorney (Kejagung). Nevertheless, in the trial, the Government represented by Netty Firdaus from the Supreme Attorney did not use the opportunity to deliver the information.

Meanwhile, the Legal Counsel of the Parliament, Akil Mukhtar, stated that the Supreme Attorney action to investigate the General Major of TNI (Ret.) Subarda Midjaja, did not violate the law. Beside being a prosecutor, the Attorney’s Office indeed had an authority to conduct investigation on certain cases. “moreover in this case, the Police and the Supreme Attorney investigated with different objects,” explained Akil Mukhtar.

The argument of Akil Mukhtar was on the opposite of the information from the Related Parties of the Indonesian Police, Police Commissioner RM Panggabean that tend to defend the husband of the Petitioner. He stated that in the name of law certainty, the authorization for investigation would have been better if given to the Police. The Information was folloed up by Constitution Justice Maruarar Siahaan that questioned the law certainty of the Supreme Attorney’s action that conducted investigation without prior communication with the Police that had investigated the same problem until issuing the Letter of Discontinuing Investigation (Surat Perintah Penghentian Pendidikan (SP3)).

About this, Akil Mukhtar answered that apart from the legal principle to secure the law certainty, justice in Indonesia also used the Prejudice of Innocence, principally  someone could only be found guilty after the court’s verdict. “In the Penal Code, the SP3 is not a law certainty. If the SP3 is considered as a law certainty, then the prejudice of innocence cannot be enforced,” answered Akil Mukhtar.

Ahmad Bay Lubis as the Legal Counsel of the Petitioner explained that the case was filed because the husband of the Petitioner felt had been made a victim of a wrong system that was double authority of the Attorney’s Office. “Hence, the legal attempts made by the husband of the Petitioner does not only mean to solve his personal problems, but more intended to fix the justicial system in the future,” explained Ahmad.

Before closing the trial, Head of the Justice Board, Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddiqie, S.H. requsted both the Petitioner and the Petitionee to submit the list of experts and additonal evidences to be delivered in the next trial. (Kencana Suluh Hikmah/Yogi Djatnika)