Rico Pandeirot, Petitioner Principal Law on Criminal Procedure Judicial Decisions as pronunciation, Tuesday (23 / 8) in the courtroom of the Constitutional Court Plenum

Constitutional Court (MK) states cannot accept the petition filed by YB Purwaning M. Yanuar and friends’ related judicial review of Article 65 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Code (Criminal Code). Number 28/PUU-IX/2011 verdict was read by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, assisted by eight judges constitution on Tuesday (23 / 8), at the Plenary Court Room.

"The Petitioner has the legal (legal standing) to file the petition a quo. Petitioners’ petition ne bis in idem. To declare the petition of the petition is not acceptable, "he said Mahfud read the verdict.

In the Court’s opinion read by Justice Constitutional Hamdan Zoelva, the Court found Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Code relating to the rights of all suspects to call witnesses, has been expressly provided for in Article 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is that investigators must call and examine witnesses presented by the suspect. However, further Hamdan, the problem in practice, as has been considered in the decision No. 65/PUU-VIII/2010 dated August 8, 2011, investigators often ignore and do not call or examine witnesses presented by the suspect on the grounds that the witness is not required in order interests of the investigation because investigators suspect witnesses offered rate does not meet the qualifications of a witness who saw himself, hearing his own and his own experience. Associated with the test article, explains the Court’s Hamdan decision has imposed a verdict stating that Article 1 number 26 and number 27; Article 65, Article 116 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4); and Article 184 paragraph (1) letter a Act Law Number 8 Year 1981 on the Law of Criminal Procedure is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 along the notion of witnesses in the articles are not meant also include "people who can provide information in order to investigation, prosecution and a criminal justice which is not always he heard him, he sees himself, and he experienced his own ".

"Therefore the petition of the petition along to responsible investigators to call and examine witnesses referred to the mentioned article does not need to be considered again. Thus the petition of the Petitioners ne bis in idem, "said Hamdan.

Meanwhile, Hamdan said the Petitioners’ arguments relating to the obligation of judges to call and examine witnesses who favor the defendant in the trial, according to the Court it has been expressly provided for in Article 160 paragraph (1) c Criminal Procedure Code. Thus, the notion of a favorable witness for the defendant in Article 65 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be associated with the provision of Article 160 paragraph (1) c Criminal Code, so that the judge shall summon and examine witnesses favorable filed by the defendant or counsel. "As for understanding the witness referred to in Article 65 Criminal Procedure Code has been determined by the Court in Decision No. 65/PUU-VIII/2010, dated August 8, 2011. Thus the petition of the Petitioners ne bis in idem, "he explained. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yazid.tr)