The trial continued against Act 5 / 2011 on Public Accountants held by Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (11 / 1) at the Plenary Room. Case registered under No. 84/PUU-IX/2011 was filed by M. Achsin, Anton Silalahi, Yanuar Maulana Rahmat Zuhdi and M. Zainudin as a Public Accountant.

In the trial repair requests, Faizin Sulistio as the Petitioner’s attorney has made several improvements, including changing the test stone, shorten application and strengthen the argument. "The first, Article 55A of Law Public Accountants, we associate, or we are testing with Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph 28G (1).Well, in this test rock we associate with in Article 55A is linked to the manipulation of phrases that we consider multiple interpretations, and in this case would create legal uncertainty. Then a second, related to Article 55 of our test with Article 28D paragraphs (1) associated with certainty, "he said.

Meanwhile, regarding the existence of discrimination, Faizin also include Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. This, further Faizin, is associated with several distinctions between the professions. "In our opinion, there are different treatment when the public accounting profession than other professions, e.g., professional accountant or the state or PPK. In act on District Election Committee it supposes there is nothing to do with the criminalization of the profession. Then the Press Law, it is also no criminalization of his profession. Similarly was the notary. We think it is contradictory to Article 28I Paragraph (2) relating to discrimination or discriminatory treatment, "he explained. 

In the main petition, Petitioner argues that Articles 55 and 56 of the Public Accountants Act is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, because it creates legal uncertainty. Article 55 letter a of the Act a quo that contain the phrase "manipulation" is difficult to understand because the act of manipulation is not unknown in the basic formulation of the principal provisions of the Penal Code as in criminal law. The formulation set forth in the Penal Code is a forgery. In addition, Article 55 letter b of the Public Accountants Act violated Article 28G Paragraphs (1) of the 1945 Constitution; because Article a quo has created a sense of insecurity or extreme fear that the Applicant did not feel free to practice his profession for acts or omissions. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)