Assemblies of judicial review of Act 17/2011 on State Intelligence registered in no. 7/PUU-X/2012 number entered its second session, Thursday (16/2). This second trial was to improvement petition Panel, chaired by the Chief Judge of the Constitutional M. Akil Mochtar. Harjono and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi acted as a member. The applicant parties in these proceedings convey some changes in his petition.

Applicant’s case is the law of the State Intelligence Advocacy Coalition is comprised of several NGOs, the Association for Participatory Society Initiative for Transition Justice (Imparsial), Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (Elsam), the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), Equal Society, and Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), and Mugiyanto as an individual Petitioner.

At the first trial, the Petitioner stated that the ratification bill at the State Intelligence in October 2011 some material not in line with human rights and zeal for reforming intelligence. Some of the Article in Act 17/2011 it is considered to have spawned a security threat to civil liberties, human rights, and freedom of the press."A number of chapters, verses and phrases in the State Intelligence Service Act is contrary to a number of Articles of the 1945 Constitution. State Intelligence Act does not expressly provide a definition of national security, "said attorney applicant, Wahyudi Djafar at the time.

Wahyudi also expressed that the definition of the threats outlined in the general provisions of Article 1, paragraph (4) Law of the State Intelligence, especially in the phrase "various aspects" is a definition of the rubber. Because the definitions of various aspects of the petition is deemed to be clearly defined so that multiple interpretations.

Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi during the first trial was conducted suggested that regrouping (recast) on the basis or foundation stone petitum review application. While M. Akil Mochtar questioned the legal standing of the Petitioners are individual Indonesian Citizen (WNI).

Repair Requests

On hearing this, Wahyudi still be the mouthpiece of the Petitioners. He stated the advice Akil, legal standing (the right of defendants) the applicant clarified. "As per advice of judges, the potential loss Applicant contained in Article 17 of Law on the Intelligence we describe," said Wahyudi.

Appropriate advice Fadlil, Article 32 paragraph (1) Intelligence Services Act filed by the Applicant to be tested is also described with regrouping. Wahyudi also explained that in order to increase the consideration for the judge include wiretapping cases in some countries and cases of leakage of intelligence information.

At the end of the trial, Akil examine documentary evidence attached to the Petitioners, namely P. 1 (one documentary evidence) to P. 6. "Evidence-Q6 P.1 letter declared invalid. Brother just wait ya a call from the Court. We will report this to the first plenary. Whatever the decision, would you be called, "Akil said closing the session that started at 14.00 at the Plenary Meeting Room, 2nd Floor of the Court Building. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)