Act No. 10 of 1998 concerning Amendment to Law Number 7 of 1992 concerning Banking (Banking Law) petitioned for judicial review to the Constitutional Court (MK) at the Plenary Court Courtroom on Tuesday (10/7). Cases registered with the number 64/PUU-X/2012 filed by Magda Safrina.

In his petition, the Petitioner represented that present without legal counsel expressing his constitutional rights impaired by the enactment of Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Banking Law. Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) states "(1) Banks are required to keep information about saving customers and deposits, except in the case referred to in Article 41, Article 41A, Section 42, Article 43, Article 44, Article 44A , (2) The provisions referred to in paragraph (1) shall also apply to an affiliated party ".

Applicants who are undergoing a divorce lawsuit in Banda Aceh Sharia Court said Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) blocking his access to information about the property, especially regarding the inspection along with savings deposits held by the applicant’s husband. No marriage in accordance with Law. 1 In 1974, the breakup divorce community property is set in the Compilation of Islamic Law.

In the Compilation of Islamic Law, all property acquired during the marriage took place, either the wife or husband. However, a number of community property is stored in the name of the husband, as listed in the Syariah Court, the husband denies the existence of these deposits, "he said in front of the judges of the Constitutional Court is headed by Deputy Chief Justice Achmad Sodiki. Banda Aceh Sharia Court so request clarification want to bank on it, which happens precisely because the banks do not allow the existence of Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2).

"The bank argued that the secrecy of deposits and assets deposited in banks shall be kept by the bank. I as the applicant felt that their constitutional rights violated by the Law no. 10/1998, especially Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2). I am entitled to the property and cannot be taken arbitrarily treated in a discriminatory way. Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) violated my constitutional rights, potentially harming me, and lose my rights acquired during the marriage," he explained.

Justices of the Constitutional Assembly consists of Constitutional Justice M. Akil Mochtar and Harjono to suggest improvements to the Applicant. According to Akil, conflicts between the norms of Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) the articles of the 1945 Constitution which is used as a test stone. "What is your constitutional right to marry was completely prevented by the existence of Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)? Its relevance is less measurable. The most widely described is the problem. The process of divorce in a religious court, is associated with the property Look, you have difficulties to gain access on the property where you think the husband is a treasure. Hindered by Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) only gives authority to the bank for purposes of taxation, settlement and other bank accounts, not including the rights of citizens when the divorce is dealing with problems like this," suggested Akil.

While Harjono suggested that the Petitioner considers changing petitum because if a quo article was canceled, it causes no more bank secrecy. "Not dangerous, just add the interpretation of it, as long as the article does not preclude the existence of constitutional rights suffered by the applicant," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)