Application for judicial review of Act 32/2004 regarding Regional Government (Regional Government Law) and Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Proceedings (Criminal Code) submitted by the East Lampung Regent (non-active), Hi. Satono, decided not accepted by the Constitutional Court (MK). "Amar verdict, judgment, stated the petition is not acceptable to all," said Chairman of the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD in the courtroom with the verdict pronounced Number 85/PUU-IX/2011 agenda that was held at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (3/27/2012) afternoon.

Satono constitutional rights have been impaired due to consider the applicability of Article 244, Article 259 Criminal Procedure Code and Article 30, 31, 33 paragraph (1) of Law 32/2004 in conjunction with Law 12/2008. Article 259 Criminal Procedure Code states: "(1) For the benefit of the law against any decision which has permanent legal power of the court other than the Supreme Court, may be filed one appeal by the Attorney General, (2) Decision of appeal in the interest of law should not be detrimental interested parties ".

Then Article 33 paragraph (1) of Law 32/2004 in conjunction with Law 12/2008 which states, "the head region and / or deputy regional heads are suspended as referred to in Article 30 paragraph (1), Article 31 paragraph (1), and Article 32 paragraph (5) after going through the judicial process was found innocent by a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force, at least 30 (thirty) days, the President had rehabilitate and reactivate the head region and / or the deputy head of the relevant area until the end his term ".

Court declared the law under consideration, the request for cassation in the interest of the law, by forming the Act is placed in Chapter XVIII of Extraordinary Remedies, Part One on Audit of Final Appeal For the sake of Interest Law. Thus, the request for cassation in the interest of law is, not the usual remedies. Because the appeal may be filed only decision that has permanent legal power which means it is executed it is not detrimental to the parties concerned. It is also affirmed in Article 259 paragraph (2) Criminal Procedure Code.

"A decision by a court of first instance or appellate level of the general court or the first or the appellate level of the military court which has permanent legal power that can be applied for an appeal in the interest of law by the Attorney General," said Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati read the legal considerations.

Meaning of appeal in the interest of law, continued Maria, is the possibility of a verdict in the first instance or appellate remedy is not made by the public prosecutor or by the defendant, so the verdict obtained permanent legal force, but the decision contains an error or mistake of law can not be repaired. To fix such a decision can only be reached through the appeal in the interest of law. In contrast to the decision of the administrative state in which there is a clause, "If there is a mistake later in this decision, will be repaired as is", thus allowing the state administration authorities concerned to improve his decision.

According to the Court, the provisions of Article 259 Criminal Procedure Code does not harm Satono constitutional rights as guaranteed by Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution which states, "Indonesia is a country of law". Precisely with the provisions of Article 259 Criminal Procedure Code allows for the correction of mistakes or errors of law apply. In addition, according to the provisions of Article 259 paragraph (2) Criminal Procedure Code the decision was required by law for the sake of harm should not be concerned.
 
Regarding equality before the law and government, according to the Court, no one was harmed by the effect of Article 259 Criminal Procedure Code as addressed to "all" criminal verdict which has permanent legal power that has been decided by a court other than the Supreme Court. Rule of law in a fair and discriminative treatment, has been confirmed in Article 259 Criminal Procedure Code, that the verdict of criminal has obtained permanent legal force that decided by the Supreme Court but an appeal may be filed in the interest of law by the Attorney General, and then only once and applies to all people without distinction of any kind. "Thus the Court is no element of legal uncertainty and discriminatory elements in the article a quo," said Maria.
 
Then, on testing the constitutionality of Article 33 paragraph (1) of Law 32/2004 in conjunction with Law 12/2008, which according to the Petitioner the phrase "...based on court decisions that have permanent legal force ... "which, according to the 1945 conflict Satono if not coupled with the phrase" including acquittal ".According to the Court, a verdict which has permanent legal power, should be implemented. The issue which the decision is permanent legal force and should be implemented or executed, whether the verdict is no more remedy that can be taken, or including acquittal, or a decision that even though there are still legal, but legal amazing, is executable, or is all pending a review of the new executable, it is a matter of law, not a matter of the constitutionality of the norm. Although Article 268 paragraph (1) Criminal Procedure Code states, "Request for reconsideration of a decision not to suspend or stop the implementation of this decision", but in practice, there is a decision to execute before the reconsideration decision and any decision to execute a decision after reconsideration . Similarly, the provisions of Article 244 Criminal Procedure Code which is also filed by the applicant to state in accordance with the 1945 Constitution, but in practice there are also free to the verdict being applied for an appeal inspection. Thus, the petition that asks the addition of the phrase, "including free decision" in Article 33 paragraph (1) of Act 32/2004 in conjunction with Act 12/2008 is not an issue of constitutionality of norms, but enforcement problems.

Therefore Satono request relating to Criminal Procedure Article 244 and Article 33 paragraph (1) of Act 32/2004 in conjunction with Act 12/2008, the Court has no authority to set a trial. Then, the test of Article 259 Criminal Procedure Code, the Court Satono has no legal status (legal standing), so the Court is no longer considering the subject application. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)