The provisions of Article 55 and Article 56 of Act No. 5 of 2011 on Public Accountants are discriminatory. It is delivered by experts in Constitutional Law, Gadjah Mada University Fadjroel Falaakh in the trial continued with the case number 84/PUU-IX/2011 held on Wednesday (22/2), at the Plenary Court Room. The applicant in this case, namely M. Achsin, Anton Silalahi, Yanuar Maulana Rahmat, and M. Zuhdi Zainudin as Certified Public Accountants.

"A quo provision made same of public accountants who perform criminal acts with other criminal law subjects. Subject the same law, but are treated differently and subjected to the same criminal sanctions. Is a crime here (Article 55 of the Law of Certified Public Accountants) is the same with the help of a crime. It is in the criminal law should be distinguished. Must be distinguished between those who commit offenses with the help did the crime. Therefore, this provision is discriminatory, "explained Fadjroel before the judges of the Constitutional Court is headed by Deputy Chairman Achmad Sodiki.

In addition, Fadjroel also revealed Public Accountants Act is incoherence between one chapter to another. It was, further Fadjroel, seen in incoherence in Article 30 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 53 of Law with Article 55 of the Public Accountants Public Accountants Act. "This is because in essence Article 53 paragraph (1) qualified the actions of Article 30 paragraph (1) letter c and threatened sanctions for administrative violations. However, in Article 55 of Law of Certified Public Accountants settled administrative violations as criminal offenses. However, the Act does not provide description qualification as acts of offense in what turned into an administrative offense. This shows the incoherence of the uncertainty of law in Article 28J of the 1945 Constitution, "said the expert Fadjroel Related Party, the Indonesia Institute of Certified Public Accountants (IAPI).

In the trial, the IAPI also filed a statement as Related Parties. According to IAPI, Article 55 and Article 56 of Law on Certified Public Accountants are not in accordance with the characteristics of the public accounting profession. The word ‘manipulation’ in the Public Accounting Act was considered too general (common) and equated with the word ‘fraud’ that are ‘specific’. According to IAPI, this led to the criminalization of public accountants and cause overlap problems. The Government considered IAPI not need to take over the rules of the association. "Instead of criminal sanctions or revocation of license, the negative news in the media that would not stand alone, it will result to the public accounting profession," said representatives of IAPI.

While Etty Retno Wulandari Government Experts explain that the Public Accounting Act aims to protect the public. A criminal sanction in the Public Accounting Act is reasonable, especially regarding the authenticity of the paperwork generated by a public accountant. "Paper work is not a threat to public accounting. Just make sure the public accountant to work in accordance with the applicable standards, "he explained.

In the main petition, Petitioner argued that Articles 55 and 56 of the Public Accountants Act is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, because of legal uncertainty. Article 55 letters a bill that contains the phrase "manipulation" is difficult to understand because the act of manipulation is not recognized in the basic formulation of the main provisions in the Penal Code as criminal law. Formula set forth in the Penal Code is forgery. In addition, Article 55 letter b of Certified Public Accountants contrary to Article 28G Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, because that article has created a sense of insecurity or extreme fear that the Petitioners did not feel free to practice his profession for acts or omissions. ( Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)