---

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing on a case verdict on Friday (4/5) morning. One case who also read out the verdict, the case No.11/PUU-X/2012 on the review of Act on Police petitioned by Bonyamin and Supriyadi of Indonesia’s Anti-Corruption Society (Maki). Petition can not be accepted because the applicant has no legal standing to file Act 2 of 2002.

"Decision. Hearing, the petition declared unacceptable. Thus it was decided in the Consultative Meeting (RPH) by nine Constitutional Court Justices, "said Chairman of the Constitutional Court as the Court read the verdict in the trial that was held at the Plenary Meeting Room, Floor 2, Building the Constitutional Court.

Court ruling was made after considering the legal considerations that the decision of the Court pursuant to Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court declared that its explanation may apply to the 1945 Constitution are those who consider the rights and / or authorities granted by the 1945 impaired by the enactment an Act.

Then, since the decision of the Court No. 006/PUU-III/2005 dated May 31, 2005 and Decision of the Constitutional Court No.11/PUU-V/2007 dated 20 September 2007, the Court held that constitutional rights and / or authorities referred to in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the need to comply five conditions.

Considering both, the Court considered that the applicant is in compliance with the provisions of Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court with the above explanation, namely a group of individual citizens who have similar interests or at least the position of the applicant as a citizen of taxpayers.

As for the costs of the Police Act, the applicant can not prove the specific that they are losing money or at least potentially harmed. The applicant was also considered by the Court can not prove the existence of a causal relationship (causal verband) between the loss to the enactment of the law petitioned for review.

Based on the above considerations the Court then draw a conclusion.” Based on the assessment of facts and law as described above, the Court concluded, the Court has the authority to hear the petition, the Petitioner has no legal status (legal standing) to file the petition a quo, the principal application is not considered, "said Mahfud conclusion Court ruling read.

 

The trial chronology

In the first hearing petition asking the Court to add two chapters to the Police Act."We call on the Police Act added two chapters on setting up and management in the police administration and article about the financial examination by the CPC," said Bonyamin deliver his petition to the principal brief, Friday (3/2) ago.

In the second trial of this case, Friday (24/2) the applicant could submit his request repairs. At that time Bonyamin underline that it redefined the petition which in essence assumes that state police regulations under the control of the President in opposition to the 1945 Constitution. The control of the police has become too widespread and uncontrolled. "We tried to formulate in the form of repair is that the police under a president opposed to the 1945 Constitution. Because it becomes an absolute power," said Bonyamin time. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)

---