The Constitutional Court held a hearing test again the Book of the Criminal Justice Act (Penal Code) against the 1945 Constitution (17/2). The cases registered no. 15/PUU-X/2012 filed by Raja Syahrial Herman and Raja Fadli.

In the main petition, the Petitioners are represented by legal counsel Rangga Lukito, expressing feel their constitutional rights violated due to the operation of Section 365 of the Criminal Code. Rangga reveals the Applicant sentenced to death of the high court of first instance due to theft, which is preceded, accompanied with violence against the person. "Then the applicant prior attorney did not file an appeal of memory, causing the Supreme Court is an appeal process the applicant now. To that end, the applicant must accept the decision to die so that it is contrary to the applicant according to Article 28A of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, in petitum, the applicant requested a quo article was canceled, "said Rangga in front of the judges of the Constitutional Court, headed by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Maria Farida Indrati, and Harjono.

Responding to the petition, the petitioner requested that Harjono correct the petition in accordance with the rules of the Constitutional Court (MK). Harjono presented the petition to be fixed and the position of legal authority (legal standing). "Please adjust the authority of the Constitutional Court in a petition with the Constitutional Court rules. What are the applications requirements have been adjusted with FMD as well?” said Harjono.

Harjono also revealed Court had decided on the death penalty. According to Harjono, although the applicant applied for different chapters, but the applicant still have to look at the decision. "A formal request is different, but the applicant must explain the difference between your applications with the previous application. This will affect the judge’s assessment later on, "he explained.

Meanwhile, Maria Farida Indrati Applicant requested that further clarify the constitutional harm experienced. "What is the constitutional harm or potential harm suffered by the Petitioners constitutional? It should be noted. Then, the applicant must also oppose the proposed article to be tested with the articles of the 1945 Constitution, "he explained. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)