The first session of reviewing the Act No.5 / 2011 concerning Public Accountants, in particular to Article 55 letter a and Article 56 was held at the Constitutional Court (MK), Friday (16/12) in the Meeting Room of the Constitutional Court Panel. Two principal applicants attended the hearing, chaired by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, and accompanied byb Anwar Usman and Harjono. The case was filed by M. Achsin, Anton Silalahi, and Yanuar Mulyana. All three are accompanied by two attorneys who are legal consultants from Brawijaya University, namely Aan Eko Widiarto and Faizin Sulistio.
 
The first hearing for this case was preliminary examination. Appropriate agenda of the session, Petitioner, represented by legal counsel present principal petition. Aan Eko Widiarto explained that the applicant feels aggrieved by the enactment of their constitutional rights Article 55 letter a and Article 56 of the Public Accountants Act.
 
The second article in question Petitioner deemed contrary to Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, the Applicant also considers two chapters create legal uncertainty for the applicant. "The word 'manipulation' in Article 55 letter a Law on Public Accountants multiple interpretations. According to an article a quo that help make the manipulation could also be criminalized. Whereas in the Penal Code which helps actors and manipulation imposed a different sentence, but this is generalized, "said Aan.
 
Aan proceed according to Article 55 letter a of the Public Accountants Act also stated if the rigging will be subject to penalties of five years in prison and categorized as felonies. In fact, continued Aan, in the discussion in the House have agreed that public accountants can not be subject to criminal like that. "The threat of manipulation actions provided for disproportionate because only saw action. Action should be to eliminate the data for example, need only threatened with a code of ethics of public accountants, not criminalized. This raises the fear and inconvenience to the public accountant, "said Aan.
 
Aan also explained that actually has a lot of regulations governing public accountant. So with the Act is deemed excessive by the applicant because the issue of self-regulated public accountant.
 
As in the case investigation hearings in the Court, the panels of judges are required to provide input to the Applicant. "Please would be used or not, want to ignore our advice also does not matter. It has become our duty, that is what distinguishes the Court by other courts, "explained Fadlil.
 
Harjono provided advice to the Petitioner to explain in more detail what the rights are barred by the Article 55 letter a and Article 56 of the Public Accountants Act. Meanwhile, Anwar advised Applicant provides a comparison of other laws that are similar to this Public Accountants Act. While Petitioner asserts Fadlil reminded that the legal position of the Petitioners. "Applicant is an individual or a profession? It is different constitutional rights. So please explain, "lid Fadlil. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)