The trial continued of Act 5/2004 regarding the Supreme Court and Act Act 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia held back the Constitutional Court (MK) on Friday (20/4), at the Plenary Court Room. Cases registered with Court Registrar No. 28/PUU-X/2012 filed by Agus Yahya.

The applicant, represented by legal counsel, M. Said Utomo explained that they have made improvements recommended by the Assembly request the Constitutional Court. According to Said, the applicant has improved the articles of the 1945 Constitution as a test of the statute being applied. "We fixed it, that is either false or citations that we have already done, at two points, that is a 2.4," he said.

Furthermore, the changes made were the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Case Number 23/PUU-V/2007. In the ruling, the injunction of the decision reads, "To declare that the petition be rejected ‘. "However, in this case we would still propose that we think maybe its time in 2007, in the current era, that there had been service the Public Service Act. I think there should be a judicial review because the era is different because the Supreme Court as a public service providers, as state officials are bound by the Public Service Act have an obligation, among others, which I quote in addition is to serve every citizen of Indonesia, in terms of service public that is the mandate of the Constitution of 1945, "he said in front of judges, chaired by Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim.

The applicant, continued Said, has also made improvements to the petition. The first point, said Said, granted the petition in its entirety. Second, states Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c of Act 5/2004 regarding Amendment to Act 14/1985 regarding the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia and Article 30ayat (2) of Act 16/2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945. "To declare that Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c of Act 5/2004 regarding Amendment to Act 14/1985 regarding the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia and Article 30 paragraph (2) of Law Number 16 Year 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia has no binding legal force with all its legal effect, "he explained.

Represented by legal counsel, M. Said Utomo, petitioner argues that the 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 Regents of 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 the state attorney," explained Said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)