A suspect who allegedly committed the crime of corruption, and is now examined by the Prosecutor’s Office of Maluku as Investigator, to review the matter to the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (18 / 1). He is Djailudin Kaisupy as Petitioners in case No. 2/PUU-X/2012.
In this case, the Petitioner pleaded reviewing Act on Attorney No. 16 in 2004 in Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d, reads, "conduct an investigation of certain criminal acts under the legislation." According to the Petitioners argue, the article has been contrary to the constitutional rights. "And declare such article does not provide protection and legal certainty," explained the applicant in the application file.
Moreover, Petitioner also said that the article can not give legal certainty in the handling of the case against him. "With the existence of Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d in 2004 about the prosecution, is inconsistent with and contradictory to No. 8 in 1981 on the Criminal Code," said Applicant.
While in the Criminal Code Act expressly set of tasks and functions as a prosecutor is the public prosecutor, not as an investigator. Giving rise to multi-interpretations and potentially cause an unconstitutional interpretation. "And Article 30 is also contrary to the principles of recognition, security, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law which is a human right, as set forth in Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28 j paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, "Petitioner explained.
In addition, the Petitioner in petitum stated that prosecutors had exceeded its authority as a prosecutor and or stated that the investigation by the High Court against the applicant Maluku is invalid because it exceeds its authority rather than as a prosecutor, but the investigator.
On that occasion, too, conveyed the advice given by a Judge of the Constitutional Assembly which consists of Fadlil Sumadi Ahmad (chairman), accompanied by Achmad Sodiki and Muhammad Alim, respectively as members. For example, Fadlil Sumadi gives advice related to another position held by the prosecutor as investigator and prosecutor. "But there has been no explanation why the concurrent positions in the petition that could harm your constitutional rights," explained Fadlil.
Then Sodiki questioned the associated with Petitioner’s petitum. In his advice, he said that the Applicant should include in Article 50 letter d and the explanation is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. "As is where is mentioned as a benchmark of Article 28D j and Article 28 paragraphs (2)," he explained.
After being applied contrary, continued Sodiki, the Applicant must include the Act does not have binding legal force. "Then the test was not associated with norms of behavior and actions of the prosecutor who had exceeded his authority," explains Sodiki.
The last advice was given by Alim. According to him, the Authority of Civil Servant (PNS) can not stand alone; he should be under the coordination by police investigators. "So it does not mean he’s beyond," he explained. Applicant was given 14 days to fix the petition. Do you want to fix it or not, it’s up to you, "he explained. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 | 19:53 WIB 164