Saipul Jamil petition reviewed Act 22 of 2009 on Road Traffic and Transportation rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK) in its entirety. "Passing, the petition states refused to entirely," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD who acted as chairman of the session, when reading the verdict Number 57/PUU-X/2012, at the Plenary Meeting Room of the Constitutional Court, Monday (13/8) afternoon.

Before considering the subject application, the Court should cite Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law which states, "The Constitutional Court may request information and / or minutes of meetings relating to the application being examined to the People's Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council, and / or President "the testing of a statute. "In other words, the Court may request or not request information and / or minutes of meetings (to institutions)" Court said.

While the legal issues and the application is tested by the applicant is considered to be quite clear, the Court saw no urgency and relevance to request information and / or minutes of meetings of the People's Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, Regional Representative Council, and / or President. "So immediately decide upon the Court a quo," said Court.

Furthermore, after carefully examining the petition, the Court argues that the Petitioner was charged with Article 310 of Law 22/2009 by Purwakarta District Attorney due to traffic accident on Cipularang Toll Road KM. 96.400 in the District Court jurisdiction Purwakarta, West Java. In a traffic accident the applicant's wife is named Virginia Anggraini died.

However, the phrase "negligence" in Article 310 of Law 22/2009, according to Saipul Jamil as the applicant, may lead to a broad interpretation of the law committed by the Council of Judges, Prosecutors, and the subjective expert witness in court. So that, according to Petitioner, it can be disadvantageous because there is no legal certainty regarding the understanding of the phrase "negligence" is.

Petitioners also request that the phrase "other people" in the article a quo given the interpretation "does not include a spouse or family members who are both victims of a traffic accident.

Looking at the arguments of Petitioner, the Court considers that Article 310 of Law 22/2009 is the section that applies to every citizen of Indonesia (WNI). "Therefore, the article a quo would provide guarantees and protection for victims of negligence of any person, including husband, wife, child, or family members," said the Court in its decision.

While the provision in question with another person who is not himself. The concept of wives, husbands or other family are members of a family unit that no one else. "This is in accordance with Article 1 of Law No. 1/1974 on Marriage, is not relevant to be contrasted with the article a quo," said Court.

Associated with the referenced constitutional rights of Article 28G Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Court did not prohibit the state through legislation to drop criminal charges against people who obviously negligent. "Thus the threat of criminal proceedings against those who neglect as defined in Article 310 of Law 22/2009 is not contrary to the 1945 Constitution," wrote the Court. "Application Applicants must be declared unwarranted by law," added the Court. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)

Tuesday, August 14, 2012 | 07:43 WIB 116