The trial continued to test the law No. 8 of 1981 on the Book of the Law of Criminal Law was held back by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (1 / 11). Case registered with the Registrar of the Constitutional Court No. 56/PUU-IX/2011 filed by the Governor of Bengkulu is non-active Agusrin Maryono Najamudin who got an acquittal by the Central Jakarta District Court.

In a briefing session of the Government, Suharsono which became representative of the Government argued that the petition is not the authority of the Court. Suharsono reveal issues raised by Petitioners in his petition were about the implications of Article 67 and Article 244 Criminal Procedure Code, not a constitutional article."The problem of the Petitioner is the implementation of Article 67 and Article 244 Criminal Procedure Code with the jurisprudence of MA. Application of a norm is not the Mk authority to hear and rule since the authority of the Constitutional Court is to examine in accordance with Article 24C. In addition, the MA is also entitled to appeal and provide evidence about the attitude and application of law to the case. Acquittal pure material meets the qualifications as examination Criminal Procedure Article 253, "he explained.

Responding to the statement of the Government, the Petitioner’s attorney, Yusril Ihza Mahendra stated that the applicant does not intend to test jurisprudence of MA because no court can examine jurisprudence other institutions. "However, jurisprudence cannot shift the norm in a law and only the Constitutional Court has the authority to cancel a norm of law and declared a norm of law has no binding legal force," he explained.

Agusrin M. Najamudin when applying for this status as a defendant in a criminal case who has been acquitted by the Central Jakarta District Court ruling that states petition the decision dated May 24, 2011 ago. The public prosecutor when he claimed the right of the accused and the ability to restore the status and dignity and dignity under the provisions of Article 67 and Article 244 Criminal Procedure Code.

"So this decision is final because Article 67 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly states, that of acquittal is not appealable. In the case at hand Petitioner, Attorney did not make an appeal, but immediately appealed the decision and clearly violates the provisions of Article 67 and Article 244 Criminal Procedure Code. According to public prosecutor argued that such appeals are based upon jurisprudence of Supreme Court (MA). Well, with this reason we believe that the applicant has legal standing, because there are constitutional rights of an aggrieved applicant, among other things in the rights set out in Article 28I paragraph (1) of the Act of 1945, especially about security, fairness, recognition, equality, justice and legal certainty, "he explained at the hearing improvement petition on Friday (7 / 10) ago.

Yusril Ihza Mahendra as the Petitioner’s attorney to assess the articles a quo in its development having an important shift, especially with the release of the Minister of Justice Decree No.PW.07.03 M.14-1983 on Supplementary Guidelines for Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code. At number 19 Appendix The following affirmations are: "(i) against the acquittal cannot be appealed, (ii) but under the circumstances, then by law, truth and justice, against the decision of an appeal can be requested free". This is according to Yusril a problem in the application of Article 67 and Article 244 Criminal Procedure Code. "The decision (Letter of the Minister of Justice) was constantly used as a reference by many court decisions until now. So he categorized as fixed Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, "said Yusril. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)