Petitioner on Corruption Eradication Commission Investigation Rules Fix Petition

Judicial Review of Act 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission, which sued by Habiburokhman, Maulana Muhammad Bungaran, and Munathasir Mustaman as the Petitioners No. 80/PUU-X/2012, and M. Farhat Abbas as Petitioner No. 81/PUU-X/2012, each profession as an Advocate improving petition in the Constitutional Court on Thursday (13/9).

In the trial led Judge Maria Farida Indrati, the Petitioner 80, Habiburokhman outlines repairs associated with systematic rules in preparing the petition in the Constitutional Court. According to him, the petitioners had already improved the application in accordance with the direction of the judges of the constitution. "(Systematic request) has been changed from the authority of the Court, until the legal status (legal standing) and the interests of the Petitioner," he explained.

Later in petition No.. 2, the Petitioners also improve and change, "We change it to declare Article 50 paragraph (3) of Law no. 30/2002 along the phrase 'the Police or the Attorney General is not authorized further investigation "' contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, and have no legal binding force throughout meant the authority no police or prosecutor to conduct an investigation in the case as set forth in Act other than this Act abolished," explained Habiburokhman.

No. While the case. 81, represented Petitioner attorney Grace Jaya also improve the application. According to him, there are some things that have been improved by the Petitioner in the petition, including the provisions relating to the judiciary. In addition, the applicant also improved classroom writing in accordance with the Act received the minutes of the hearing.

As reported, both Petitioner No. 80 and No. 81, has filed a Law test. 30/2002. No. 81, the review of Article 8 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), subsection (3), subsection (4), and Article 50 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), subsection (3), subsection (4), in which included duties, powers, and duties of law enforcement officers in dealing with corruption.

According to one applicant Farhat Abbas, 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 at the time.

As a result, discriminative norm, says Petitioner, causing the handling of cases Simulator Driving License (SIM) is again rolling in 2 (two) government agency, the Corruption Eradication Commission and the police, seem to overlap. "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. (Shohibul Umam / mh/

Thursday, September 13, 2012 | 18:41 WIB 109