Reviewing the Law on Corruption Eradication (Anti-Corruption Act) filed by Herlina Koibur, re-tried in the Constitutional Court (MK), Friday (25/05/2012) morning. Reviewing the hearing of the case 39/PUU-X/2012 Act No. 20 of 2001 on Amendments to Law no. 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption (Corruption Act) Article 2, paragraph (1), to repair requests.

Abel Rumbiak, as the attorney of Applicant improvement submit an application before the Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati (Panel Chair), Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi and Anwar Usman. Abel insists that the petition filed by his client is different from a judicial Corruption Act which had submitted to the Court by Dawud Djatmiko, the case is decided by the number 003/PUU-IV/2006 Court on July 25, 2006 with the ruling of "To grant the petition for partial" . "Application for judicial review that we asked this time to the phrase ‘imprisonment for 4 (four) years’, in contrast to the petition for judicial review that have been asked before," said Abel.

The difference, said Abel, is that the previous petition, the Petitioner Dawud Djatmiko question about the word "may" before the phrase "financial harm or state economy" in the formulation of Article 2 paragraph (1) Corruption Act.” While our application for judicial review of this time was pleased with the formulation limitative or minimum imprisonment provisions, as referred to in the phrase ‘imprisonment for 4 (four) years’ in Article 2 paragraph (1), regardless of whether it has or does not harm state finances, "he continued.

Other application changes the description of the phrase ‘imprisonment for 4 (four) years’ is applied evenly. This implies as though the formulation of Article 2 paragraph (1) Corruption Act embraces the principle of distributive justice without considering the quality and the proportion of one’s actions in a crime. That is why we highlight here is that we ask for justice is justice that are substantive, rather than distributive, "said Abel.

Then, changes in the demands of the application (petition). According to Abel, the phrase "imprisonment for 4 (four) years" in the formulation of Article 2, paragraph (1) Anti-Corruption Law is contradictory to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. "Therefore, we request the Court to accept this request and stated that the phrase ‘imprisonment for 4 (four) years’ in the formulation of Article 2 of the law of corruption has no binding legal force," asked Abel.

For information, Herlina Koibur was convicted of corruption by threat of imprisonment for 4 years and a fine of 200 million rupiah. If the fine is not paid, will be replaced by imprisonment for 2 months. Herlina Biak district court sentenced with the penalty, under the provisions of Article 2 paragraph (1) Corruption Act which states: "Any person who acts unlawfully enrich themselves or others that a corporation that could harm the state finance or economy of the state, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 4 (four) years and a maximum of 20 (twenty) years and fined. 200.000.000.00 (two hundred million rupiah) and a maximum of Rp. 1,000,000,000.00 (one billion rupiah). "

Furthermore, Herlina filed Appeal to the High Court of Jayapura. Herlina was sentenced to the lesser of 2 years imprisonment and a fine of 200 million. The reason a penalty of 2 years due to milder Herlina has been appointed by the Head of Department of Agriculture and Forestry District Supiori implementing development activities as fisheries production, aquaculture development of sea cucumber, sea cucumber processing training and improvement of fishing resources. But in the course of this work, Herlina not directly involved. While 3 million cash received from other defendants Herlina, a fee after the work is completed speedboat procurement. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)