Act 5/2004 regarding the Supreme Court (MA Law) and Act 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia (Law Attorney) re-filed for judicial review to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (28/3), at the Plenary Court Room. Cases registered with the Court Clerk No. 28/PUU-X/2012 filed by Agus Yahya.

Represented by legal counsel, M. Said Utomo, argues that the Petitioner's constitutional rights violated by the enactment of Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c of the Supreme Court and Article 30 paragraph (2) Law Attorney. The applicant felt had discriminated against the force of the a quo article. The applicant feels aggrieved by the discharge of Surabaya Administrative Court ruling that the Petitioner filed against the Regents Pasuruan. "The case is a matter between superiors and subordinates in which the applicant sued the dismissal of the Applicant as the Village Head Dike Wind, but the Regent was represented by counsel states," Said explained before the Panel of Judges Panel, chaired by Judge Mohammed Alim constitution.

Said describes the administrative court judge has removed two expert testimony that the Petitioner lost. The applicant was treated unfairly by the enactment of Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c of the Supreme Court. "Regent uses the state attorney, because Petitioner alleged terrorists, when Petitioner filed (application) between superiors and subordinates concerning the case of dismissal (Applicant) as the Village Head Wind Levee. Therefore, Petitioners request that the judge declare Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c of the Supreme Court and Article 30 paragraph (2) of the Prosecutor does not have binding legal force, "he explained.

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Court Panel suggested improvements to the Applicant. Alim reveal too many articles in the Supreme Court Act and the Act that the Attorney petitioned for review by the Applicant."Lots of the tested article may be shortened with the most relevant to the petition. Do not be repeated. In the petition, grant the petition stated Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c, and Article 30 paragraph (2) does not have binding legal force, and begged that the verdict was published in the news as it should. Later on, the decision of this Court will apply also to all the people of Indonesia, "Alim advice.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman requested that the applicant study the Constitutional Court Decision No. 23/PUU-V/2008 dated January 14, 2008 which also break the Article 45 paragraph (2) letter c. "The case of the applicant is concrete case, so try elaborated in which the constitutional harm, if the article is not removed," he explained.

Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Achmad Sodiki suggested the Petitioner's argument that the hearing on the Administrative Court, the judges do not listen to the Applicant witness testimony; the applicant must report it to the Judicial Commission. Thus, he reported to the brothers there. For example there are two expert testimonies is not taken into account, he reported not to come here, but to get there, "he said.

Assembly of Constitutional Court is not later than 14 days to give time to the applicant to make improvements. "If not repaired, it is considered that is the application and no changes," said Alim. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)