Mrs. A. Nuraini (Petitioner I) and her husband Subarda Midjaja (Petitioner II) did not have a legal standing in the case for the trial of Article 30 Paragraph (1) letter d of Act No.16/2004 on Indonesian Attorney (Act on Attorney). That was stated by the Constitutional Court in the verdict readout trial for case No. 28/PUU-V/2007, Thursday (27/3), in the Constitutional Court Room.

Before, Subarda Midjaja had been investigated and arrested by the Police but then released by a Investigation Suspension Warrant (SP3). But then, Subarda was once again investigated and put under custody by the Attorney Office on the basis of the article pleaded to be exercised. Because of that, Subarda considered his constitutional rights had been violated. His wife, Ny. A. Nuraini, also considered herself to suffer some loss because of that condition.

Responding to the request, the Constitutional Court stated that even though Mrs. A. Nuraini was probably right that she suffered some loss, still the loss was not the loss of her constitutional rights. Besides that, according to the Constitutional Court, there was no direct relationship between the stipulations in the act pleaded with the things considered as loss.

“Hence, besides there has been no loss of Petitioner I’s constitutional rights, there are no causative relationship (causal verband) between the personal loss and the existence of the act put on trial either,” stated Constitution Justice Maruarar Siahaan as he read the verdict legal consideration. Further more, he stated, “The Court stated that Petitioner I did not have a legal standing for the case.”

Petitioner II, Subarda Midjaja, did not have the legal standing either to file the case. Because one of the requirements to be considered as having some loss in the constitutional rights stated that there was a possibility that if the petition was granted, then the constitutional loss as mentioned would no longer exist.

Subarda did not meet the requirement. Because if the Article 30 Paragraph (1) letter d of Act on Attorney stated not to have a binding legal power, then the constitutional rights would still exist or suffer because the Attorney could still conduct the investigation for Petitioner II based on other legislation such as Act No.31/1999 on Corruption Eradication. “Therefore Petitioner II does not have a legal standing to file the petition a quo,” stated Constitution Justice H.A. Roestandi.

Hence, “The Petition of the Petitioner can not be accepted (niet ontvankelijk verklaard),” stated the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Jimly Asshiddiqie, as he read the Verdict.

Responding to the verdict, A.H. Wakil Kamal, the legal counsel of the Petitioners, when interviewed after the trial stated that what became the problem in the petition was merely technical thing because it only stated the trial of Act on Attorney. “There is a possibility that the petition can be granted using a trial on another legislation,” he said. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono/Yogi Djatnika)