Yusril Ihza Mahendra, Petitioner legal counsel in the case 69/PUU-X/2012 concerning the testing of Act No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Proceedings (Criminal Code) states that Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k and paragraph (2) contrary to the constitution. Therefore, the provisions of that chapter can be interpreted differently or interpretations, i.e., between the law enforcement officers with the accused or convicted.

Thus it is stated by Yusril in Session Introduction, Friday (27/7) in the Constitutional Court Panel Courtroom. Petition was filed by Parlin Riduansyah the time the trial took place, according to Yusril, has been arrested and forcibly detained in the penitentiary Banjarmasin.

As for Article 197 paragraph (1) Criminal Code reads, "The letter containing the decision of punishment: ... k. a requirement that the defendant was arrested or remain in custody or released. "While subsection (2) reveals," Non-compliance with the provisions of paragraph (1) letter a, b, c, d, e, f, h, i, j, k and I This article resulted in the decision null and void. "

According to Yusril, Parlin Riduansyah is a person sentenced to 2 years jail sentence appeal level. However, the Supreme Court's decision, he said, did not include a requirement that the defendant remain in custody or detained in accordance with them. To note, in the district court, acquitted Parlin.

Yusril said if the reference in paragraph (2), if any of the provisions of paragraph (1) not contained in the verdict, the judgment of the courts of any level declared null and void. "So that should be considered to have never existed," said Yusril. "Therefore, it cannot be executed."

"States must be willing to admit his guilt and high-minded and not looking for excuses to act against the law," he continued.

If the court decisions that have been null and void still be executed, arguing that the implementation of court decisions that have permanent legal force shall be performed by a prosecutor, as a result he said, would be detrimental to Petitioner's constitutional rights as guaranteed in Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Section 28G of the Constitution of 1945. In this case, the prosecutor using Article 270 Criminal Procedure Code as the reason for the implementation of court decisions. "In practice, defendants or convicts are not powerless against law enforcement official’s sometimes arbitrary act solely on the basis of power," said Yusril.

Therefore, because of the existence of two different views on the application of Article 197 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) the Criminal Procedure Code, the petition for judicial conduct. Earlier, in his petition the Petitioner even a formal test of the Criminal Code, but the intention is undone. "Aspects of formal testing we pull back. We lose, "he added without specifying the reason.

Finally, Petitioner asks the Court to provide clarity of the law or the interpretation of Article 197 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Criminal Procedure Code. Because, said Yusril, Criminal Procedure Code should ensure legal certainty for all citizens. "Assuring the certainty of a person to do or not do something they are entitled and to ensure due process of law is just and right," he said.

After hearing the applicant exposure, Panel Session, chaired by Judge Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, then, give some advice and counsel to the applicant to revise their petition. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)