Investigative authority, especially in cases of corruption, in the hands of the prosecutor does not have a clear legal basis. Therefore, the prosecutorial authority of Act 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption has been negated by the Act No.30 of 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission. Thus it is stated by M. Zainal Arifin, Petitioner in the case 16/PUU-X/2012 numbers, in a preliminary hearing on Friday (17/2) in the courtroom of the Constitutional Court. In addition to Zainal, there are two other Petitioners, namely John Budi Santoso and Ardion Sitompul. Their daily work was as an advocate. 

In this case, the Petitioners test of Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d Act 16/2004 of the RI Attorney, Article 39 of Law no. 31/1999 on Corruption Eradication, and Article 44 paragraph (4), (5), Article 50 paragraph (1), (2), (3), and paragraph (4) Law no. 30/2002 on KPK. According to Zainal, in that context, applies the principle of lex posteriori derogate legi priori. "The new law beat the old law," he said. Therefore, he argues, Act 31/1999 does not apply to any law binding on again after 30/2002. "So the prosecutor has no authority to do investigations on corruption," he said. Zainal was then requested that the phrase "or prosecution" in Article 44 paragraph (4), (5), Article 50 paragraph (1), (2), (3), and paragraph (4) Law no. 30/2002 declared no longer binding on the Court. "Since there is the Law Commission, the coordination of court corruption only exists on the Commission," he added. 

One such article, namely article 44 paragraph (4) Act 30/2002 reads, "in terms of the Corruption Eradication Commission believes that the case is forwarded, the Corruption Eradication Commission carries out its own investigation or may delegate such matters to the police investigator or prosecutor." He also considered that, in forming this Act has acted less carefully. "Therefore, the paradigm that the prosecutor still has the authority," he said. "Act 30/2002 has reduced the authority of an investigation by the Prosecutor." In addition, these provisions, he said, also contrary to the rule of law. It was because the formula is unclear and indecisive. "It would potentially violate human rights," said Zainal. 

According to him, there should be a clear differentiation between the police and prosecution authorities. It was in the hands of the police investigation, while the prosecution is on the prosecution. "It must be said as the realization of check and balances," he explained. If the settings on the authority of the investigation remain in its present form, there will be a deviation that would betray the spirit of the rule of law itself. "It would be a monster of law enforcement," he explained. "We expect the rule of law back to his soul." After listening to the key points of the petition, Constitutional Justice Panel Board, chaired by Vice-Chairman MK Ahmad Sodiki also provide some suggestions and inputs for the application. (Dodi/Yazid.tr)