Petitioner: Verdict Pronunciation Session to Public Should be announced

Matter of Act 8 of 1981 on Criminal Code is on re-trial in the Constitutional Court (MK), Tuesday (09/11/2012) afternoon. The second trial for the case 78/PUU-X/2012 particulars of Article 195, Article 197 paragraph (2) and Article 199 paragraph (2) Criminal Procedure Code is repairimng requests.

Petitioner, Zainal Arifin, before panel of judges Achmad Sodiki (panel chairman), M. Akil Mochtar and Anwar Usman, conveys point’s improvement which comprises five things. First, the article tested Zainal added, namely Article 13 paragraph (2) of Law 48/2009 on Judicial Power which states that a court ruling is only valid and have the force of law when pronounced in public sessions.

Second, Zainal added clauses in the 1945 Constitution that became touchstone, namely Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution. "Article 28F is used as a test for Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code and Article 13 paragraph (2) of Law No. 48 Year 2009," said Zainal Arifin, who also works as an advocate.

Third is improving the legal position of the applicant (legal standing) on the advice of the judge in the previous trial (29/08/2012). Strengthen legal standing, as citizens Zainal expressly reserves the right to get information by using all available channels. One of them is the right to know the actual decision to attend the reading of the verdict. During this time, the meaning of the phrase "is pronounced in open court to the public" as set forth in Article 195 Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 13 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Authority, regardless of whether the verdict is the public aware of the schedule to read the decision, so they can attend readings decision.

"In every decision there are always Irah-Irah 'pronounced in open court to the public', but in real terms the verdict was read out in a closed hearing attended only by judges and clerks assisted because they do not have the schedule to read the decision. How could the general public be able to attend the reading of the verdict if the court of appeals in particular, appeals and judicial review was never publicly made an announcement regarding the verdict in the schedule," said Zainal postulated.

Transparent Justice

Trials were conducted in an open to the public, Zainal said, a traditional form of transparency within the judiciary. Open court principle has been one of the fundamental principles of the justice system in the world. "Openness is the key to the birth of the accountability of judges and court staff will be more serious and careful in performing their duties as public can access their work. In the context of court decisions, the principles of openness will encourage the birth of decision quality and reflect a sense of justice," said Zainal.

Therefore, according to Zainal, that the phrase "is pronounced in open court to the public" in Article 195 Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 13 paragraph (2) of the Judicial Authority in accordance with Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution, the phrase should be interpreted: "Before the reading of the verdict in the trial open to the public, the court is obliged to inform the general public and is open to the parties." notification schedules verdict meant that the general public who want to know the actual court decision to attend the reading of the verdict.

Fifth, Zainal strengthens the legal standing. Zainal intends to emphasize the meaning of "decision null and void" as a basis to file a pretrial legal action against Warrant Termination of Investigation (SP3) cases Legal Administration (Sisminbakum) to be submitted to the South Jakarta District Court. "As a tax payer, the applicant has the legal standing to file the pretrial SP3 corruption cases because of the taxes that have been paid by the applicant will be used to cover the financial losses due to corruption, in which the case has been on-SP3 by the Attorney General, "said Zainal.

To note that the material tested Criminal Procedure Code of Criminal Procedure Article 195 states: "All judgment is valid and has the force of law when uttered in the hearing open to the public." Of Article 197 paragraph (2): "Non-compliance of the provisions of paragraph (1) letter a , b, c, d, e, f, h, j, k and l of this article resulted in the decision null and void. Finally, Article 199 paragraph (2): "The provisions referred to in Article 197 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) shall also apply to this section." (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh/

Tuesday, September 11, 2012 | 18:05 WIB 182