The Constitutional Court conducted a trial on Act No. 8 Year 1981 on Penal Procedural Laws (KUHAP) at the Panel Court Room of the Constitutional Court, Monday (18/2), with the agenda is Initial Examination.

The case was filed by a single individual, Soeparno, acting in the name of and for him self without being accompanied by a Legal Counsel. In the case registered under the No. 5/PUU-VI/2008 the Petitioner demanded justice concerning what happened earlier to the Petitioner.

The Petitioner, both in the material and the petitum of the case, requested the Constitutional Court to declare that Article 77 letter a, Article 83 paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) KUHAP violated the 1945 Constitution, and therefore did not have a binding legal power.

Article 77
The Sub-district Court is authorized to examine, declare, according to the stipulations regulated by mentioned law on:
a. legal or not the arrest, detention, the discontinuation of investigation or the discontinuation of prosecution;

Article 83
(1) Towards the verdict of the pre-trial on the things as mentioned in Article 79, Article 80 and Article 81 could not be requested an appeal.
(2) In exception of paragraph (1) is the verdict of the pre-trial which regulated the legal or illegal status of the investigation discontinuation or prosecution, which for that a final verdict can be requested to the District Court in the related legal area.

In the pleading, the Petitioner told that he was in the deadlock to get a law certainty on criminal case of embezzlement he was having because of the discontinuation of the investigation for seven years.

The problem began with the Petitioner buying a car in credit. Further, even though the Petitioner had fulfilled his obligation to pay in credit also some giveaway money , the car was retracted by the debitor to be re-sold. For that the Petitioner had taken many legal efforts until the case was send to the Supreme Court and they made the Petitioner won. Nevertheless, the debitor refused to return the money completely and just returened a little ammount.

Further efforts made by the Petitioner did not provided him with good results. No further actions taken. Because of that the Petitioner filed a case to the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner also explained that the pre-trial in Article 77 letter A, Article 83 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) were not clear and they had stopped and blurred and causing great loss by not putting in the investigation discontinuation letter or prosecution discontinuation letter which were important to get a law certainty.

To the petitioner, Constitution Justice Panel Board chaired by Constitution Justice Prof. Natabaya S.H., LLM. advised that the Petitioner took another legal efforts such as writing to the newspapers because this was a matter of law enforcement and not legal norms violation. “What happened was that the police did not do their job even though there was a report. Because of that, it is not the authority of the Constitutional Court. So it was the Police that is wrong by not doing their job, not the norms that are wrong,” added Constitution Justice H. Achmad Roestandi, S.H.

Also adding, Constitution Justice, Prof. H. M. Laica Marzuki, S.H. advised that the Petitioner’s file was focusing on the problem of norms exercising, then it would be better the Petitioner to be accompanied by a legal counsel. “the Petitioner can find a legal aid institution because there is free legal aid service,” advised Laica.

Before closing the trial, the Constitution Justice Panel Board also advised the Petitioner to reconsider whether to continue the petition or to withdraw it. (Wiwik Budi Wasito/Yogi Djatnika)