---

A dispute that arose between the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the National Police (INP) regarding who is entitled to conduct an investigation and the investigation of cases of alleged corruption Simulator Driving License (SIM) resulted in Korlantas Police sued in the court of judicial law in the Constitutional Court (MK), Thursday (30/8) afternoon.

In a number of cases registered with this 81/PUU-X/2012, M. Farhat Abbas who is a Lawyer / Attorney filed a Law test. 30 of 2002, where the norms are tested, namely Article 8 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), subsection (3), subsection (4), and Article 50 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), subsection (3), subsection (4), which contained therein duties, powers, and duties of law enforcement officers in dealing with corruption.

According to him, the articles being tested includes duties, powers, and duties of law enforcement agencies that are contrary to the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 1, paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1). "Norma contained (Act a quo) is highly discriminatory norm as opposed to the rights of the Petitioner to obtain legal certainty," said Windu Wijaya as the applicant's attorney.

Such case, further Windu, due to provisions contained in the law create legal uncertainty and resulted in the "dispute" between the KPK and the police investigation and the investigation of cases related to corruption in the SIM simulator Korlantas Police. "Therefore, the Petitioner requested the Constitutional Court to declare (a quo law) contrary to Article 1 Paragraph (3), Section 28D (1) of the 1945 Constitution," said Windu.

Moreover, according to the Petitioner, case handling simulator SIM impressed overlap as resolved by the two law enforcement agencies. "If it is passed by the two institutions, the case will be taken to two different courts," said the applicant. "If the results differ greatly, it will create legal uncertainty as well," added Farhat Abbas in his petition.

Farhat admit, as good citizens he obeyed the law throughout the implementation of legal norms that are used are not contrary to the law itself. But in fact, as a result of these articles, has made the Petitioner injured his constitutional rights.

So if the petition is granted, Farhat said, he no longer impaired by the existence of the article. Therefore, in petitum petition, Petitioner pleaded that the articles being tested is contrary to the 1945 Constitution, and has no binding legal effect.

KPK investigation should be reinforced

Article 50 paragraph (3) reviewed by Farhat Abbas who was also filed in the case of the petitioner that 80/PUU-X/2012 Number Habiburokhman, Maulana Muhammad Bungaran, and Munathasir Mustaman, respectively profession as an Advocate. According to them, the case made by the police and the KPK is a dual investigation. This is totally contrary to the principle of legal certainty, and contrary to Article 1 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. "Therefore, be clear on the basis of the investigations which the trial was conducted," said the petitioners.

It said the applicant again, ambiguity arises because of the phrase "..., the Police or the Attorney General no longer authorized to conduct an investigation." Therefore, the petitioners said, the Police or the Attorney General no longer authorized to investigate the extent not understood, "the authority of the police or prosecutor to conduct investigation in the case as set forth in the Act other than this Act be abolished."

"(If the interpretation of these norms by the Court) would not arise in legal uncertainty, and it became clear that the Commission is conducting an investigation as referred to in Article 50 of Law no. 30/2002. Furthermore, the investigation authority only in KPK and the National Police or the Attorney General no longer authorized to investigate the case, "explained the petitioners.

He also counsels of all judges in the trial panel. One of them is Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati as Chairman of the Panel. According to him, the reason for the loss Applicant needs to be clarified further in the petition. "I just explained it this way (according to file the petition), it is not clear disadvantage Petitioner faced with this legislation," said Maria Farida. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)

---