Defendants filed an appeal of a case of Article 244 of Act 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (Act HAP) of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Idrus, a former convict who acts as Principal Petitioner cases registered with the number 71/PUU-X/2012 it feels aggrieved by the enactment of Article 244 of Law HAP because the article says is often used by the Public Prosecutor (Prosecutor) to twist the facts so violation of constitutional rights applicant.

Housed in the courtroom panel, 4th floor, Building the Constitutional Court (MK), the Applicant expressed his "chronology" of events that caused him to feel aggrieved by the enactment of Article 244 of Law HAP. He said that based on cooperation agreements between Minister of Social Affairs and Agam Regent in 2004, the Government entered into cooperation for the provision of grants to the eight urban districts in Indonesia, one of which is district of Pasaman.

Applicant at that time served as Head of Social Pasaman. Because of his position in 2006, Petitioner was then investigated by District Attorney (Kejari) Lubuk Sikaping who then detained him for seven months and ten days. "On June 19, 2008, decision of the District Court (PN) Lubuk Sikaping pure and free I decided to restore my dignity as usual. But this only lasts until July 9 because of the public prosecutor appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court Lubuk Sikaping PN cannot be implemented because it has not reached a binding and final decision. As a result, until now the answer from the Supreme Court has not reached me that for about four years there is no clarity. I find it a violation of Article 28D of 1945, which is about the rule of law," explained Idrus.

Article 244 of the Act on HAP petitioned by Idrus for review by saying, "The decision of the criminal case at the last given by the court other than the Supreme Court, the defendant or the prosecutor may request examination of an appeal to the Supreme Court except for acquittal."

In petitum, Idrus asks the Court to change the article to be as he recommends. In fact, Idrus in petitum is a little bit "threatened" if the Court does not change the article as he wanted the Article 244 of Law HAP would violate several articles of the 1945 Constitution. "If the Constitutional Court does not alter the content of Article 244 Criminal Procedure Law 8 of 1981 will cause a violation of Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution by the parties concerned, "said K., as excerpted from the applicant a written request.

Against the petition, Chief Justice Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi Panel questioned the location of a conflict between Article 244 of Law HAP being applied to the 1945 petition as a rock testing. "You do not explain where the opposition between Article 244 by the 1945 Constitution and the explanation that how? Can you see examples of good and proper application of existing case-petition has been entered in the Court. Court is open to you," advises Fadlil. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)