BAMBANG SUGENG IRIANTO PLEA UNACCEPTED
Image


The Constitutional Court (The Court) announced that the Petition of Bambang Sugeng Irianto regarding the review of Criminal Code was unacceptable. That was announced in a trial for decision reading for case No. 42/PUU-VI/2008, Thursday (29/1), at The Court s Building.

Bambang questioned the constitutionality of Article 356 ke-1 of the Criminal Code stating, “Criminal sanction as mentioned in Article 351, Article 353, Article 354, and Article 355 may be added by one third: First, to those who commits the crime on the mother, the biological father, the wife, or the children”, with the reason that he had been investigated by Kediri Police and pressed charge by the Attorney from Kediri Attorney Sub-district Office using those articles. According to Bambang, they should have based their lawsuit on Act No. 23/2004 about the eradication of Domestic Violence according to the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali.

According to The Court, in the condition that there was a specific law and a general law, it was indeed the special one used (lex specialis derogat legi generali). Besides that, there was also a principle of lex posterior derogat legi priori, which meant that a new law replaced the old one. Nevertheless, for The Court, the two principles were related to the implementation of law by authorized institutions, and was not a question of the constitutionality of the norms; therefore The Court felt unauthorized to examine the case.

”The substance of the Petitioner s lawsuit was related to the implementation of law in the criminal case which comes under the jurisdiction of general courts below the Supreme Court, and can not be examined by The Court, ” said the Head of the trial, Constitutional Justice A. Mukthie Fadjar, as he read the conclusion.

Consequently, according to The Court, the damage felt by Bambang Sugeng Irianto was not a constitutional damage as mentioned in Article 51 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Act No. 24/2003 about The Constitutional Court, and thus, the claim could not be accepted. (Luthfi Widagdo Eddyono)

Photo: Doc. of CCRI PR/Yogi Dj

Translated by Yogi Djatnika / CCRI


Monday, February 02, 2009 | 10:38 WIB 279