The second trial for the case no. 27/PUU-X/2012, namely the case of Law No. 1 of 1961 on Stipulation of Government Regulation No. 16 of 1960 on Some Changes in the Criminal Code into law was held today, Thursday (19/4). The trial led by Chief Justice Maria Farida Indrati Penal Harjono and Muhammad Alim, accompanied this time by the Applicant requests improvement agenda.

The trial which took place in the plenary room, 2nd floor, Court House was attended by the Petitioners, namely Syarial (of the Criminal Justice Reform Society) which was accompanied by legal counsel Diyah Stiawati, Adiani Viviana, Widodo Supriyadi Eddyono, and Diyan

Represent it; Supriyadi said that it had carried out repair request. Improvement lies in testing the title changed to petition for judicial review of Article 1 of Law No. 16 of Regulation 1960 on Some Changes in the Penal Code under Government Regulation No. 12 of 1961 on the Implementation of Law No. 1 of 1961.

"So we changed the title. Secondly, regarding the legal standing we also change. Under the Constitutional Court Act, we postulated that the existence of Law Number 16 Prp Year 1960 Applicants have the potential to be violated his constitutional rights by way of direct or indirect harm efforts to provide protection, promotion, and use of human rights and the protection of freedom civil and political rights, "said Supriyadi.

Other changes occur in the rock test used to test the applicant of the Act. When the first applicant to use Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, now the Petitioner use of Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution only as a touchstone. "There are benefits principles are violated by the presence of a quo law. Therefore, we only postulate of Article 1 paragraph (3) are recruited for the 1945 test stones, "said Supriyadi.

At the previous hearing, the applicant submits it basically questioned the penalty provisions for criminal penalties that do not light up with the times. In Article 1 of Law no.1 of 1961 on Stipulation of Government Regulation No. 16 year 1960 on Some Changes in the Criminal Code into law contained the phrase "en twintig Vijf guilders" and the phrase was later changed to in Article 364, 373 379, 384 and 407 paragraph (1) Book of the Criminal Justice Act to be "two hundred and five fifty dollars ".

The phrase is related to the act of theft, embezzlement mild, mild deception, and receiving bill of lading. All these crimes were punishable by imprisonment of three months or a fine of twenty-five dollars. Penalty provision was in 1960 with the Article 1 of Regulation was changed to two hundred fifty dollars. According to the Supreme Court through the Perma No. 2 of 2012 on the Limitation of No Criminal Light Adjustment and Total Fines in the Criminal Code on February 27, 2012, in Article 1 Perma No. 2 of 2012 stated that the phrase "two hundred and fifty" in Article 364, 373, 379 , 384, 407, and Article 482 The Book of the Criminal Justice Act is read to two million five hundred thousand dollars.

According to the applicant during the first trial, a fine of two million five hundred thousand dollars is not feasible to substitute a fine of two hundred fifty dollars that prearranged."According to the sociological fact the existence of Article 1 of Regulation No. 16 of 1960 no longer provides protection and become a serious problem for the misdemeanor. The number of prisoners increased much since the case-perkata misdemeanor that should be prosecuted to the provisions of a trial proceeding and processed by using the usual provisions of criminal procedure, "said Attorney Applicant, Wahyudi Jafar. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)