Matter of Act 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Act) was tested in the Constitutional Court on Friday (13/04/2012) afternoon. Trial with the preliminary agenda for case 33/PUU-X/2012 conducted by a panel of judges headed by Maria Farida Indrati accompanied by two members, Muhammad Alim and Anwar Usman.

Material testing Police Act was filed by a citizen named Erik. Erik testing out the eight norms of the Police Act of matter, namely Article 15 paragraph (1) letter g, Article 15 paragraph (2) letter a, Article 15 paragraph (2) letter b, Article 15 paragraph (2) letter c, Article 16 Paragraph (1 ) letter a, Article 17, Article 18 paragraph (1), and Article 18 paragraph (2).

Erik is present at the hearing without his attorney, objected to the licensing authority held by the Police as the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) a letter which he said the Police Act violated Article 28, Article 28D paragraph (1) and Section 28E of the 1945 Constitution. Erik argues the use of the word "... other community activities ..." which is associated with the licensing authority, provides limits of authority are not clear. Besides the potential to cause diversion and does not provide legal certainty because of the wide scope of community activities.

Then, regarding the granting of authority to impose motor vehicle license under Article 15 paragraph (2) letter c of the Police, according to him, these provisions have exceeded their authority and limit the constitutional rights of citizens guaranteed by Article 28C Paragraph (1) and Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the activities of running or driving a motor vehicle are part of the application of science and technology, and also have a human right.

Authorizing the licensing provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) letter c has the potential to give rise to abuse of power and abuse of power by those who are authorized and inhibit the activity and the potential of the community in improving the quality of life and well-being of mankind itself. Granting authority in the driving license is not appropriate and would be more appropriate if it is replaced with the duties and obligations of states to carry out the registration or registrations are motorists in order to identify the parties or to know who was driving the vehicle. Organizing activities of the registration fee should be charged to the state, not to the citizens as well as in the manufacture of identity cards (KTP). 

Erik in his petition asking the Court stated that Article 15 paragraph (1) letter g, Article 15 paragraph (2) letter a, b, and c, Article 16 paragraph (1) letter a, Article 17 and Article 18 paragraph (1) and ( 2), the Police Act 1945 as well as contrary to the Constitution has no binding legal force.

Erik responded to the petition, the judge deliver advice or counsel. Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati Erik advised to improve their legal status (legal standing), outlines the constitutional harm, cause-effect relationship Police Act provisions that give rise to violations of constitutional rights Erik, and Erik suggested to improve the technique of writing the petition, as well as create linkages among articles tested the article in the 1945 Constitution is the touchstone. Then on the subject petition, Maria saw Erik has been made in the review petition, but does not reflect what actually makes Erik constitutional rights impaired. "Why did you hurt by the article?" Said Maria.

Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman advised to make application systematic properly with seeing petition in the Court Registrar. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim, among others, highlights the provisions of article being tested, namely Article 15 paragraphs (2) a letter stating: "give permission and supervise the activities of the general hustle and other community activities." Alim asked who has authority to give permission if the Court invalidates the provisions them. "If this in-drop, then who gives permission?" said Alim. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)