Petition filed by former chief of Village Klompang Agus Yahya is entirely rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK). Ruling of the number 28/PUU-X/2012 was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD. He is assisted by seven other constitutional judges on Wednesday (19/9) at the Plenary Court. "Declare to wholly reject the petition," said Mahfud.

In the opinion of the Court that the Constitution was read by Justice Usman Anwar, the Court had decided against the test article, the Constitutional Court Decision No. 23/PUU-V/2007, dated January 14, 2008 by amar Decision "states the petition is denied". Thus, the applicant can only apply the test to the article during the 1945 material as the basis of the test is different from the previous Court decisions, or with the constitutional requirements of different reasons. Therefore, for the proposition that pleading petition of testing the constitutionality of Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c of the Supreme Court Act Article 1, Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the judgment and opinion of the Court in Decision No. 23/PUUV/2007 dated January 14, 2008 are applicable mutatis mutandis to the decision.

"As for testing a quo norms of Article 28I Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution and Article 34 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, according to the Court the substance of Article 28 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution governs the government's obligation to the protection, promotion, enforcement and fulfillment human rights, and Article 34 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution governs the government's obligation to the provision of health care facilities and public services facilities. According to the Court, the state has run its obligation give fair treatment and meets the constitutional rights of citizens under the provisions of this Article. Based on legal considerations above, the Petitioners' arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 45A paragraph (2) letter c of Law MA unwarranted under the law, "said Anwar.

Later, Anwar went on Article 30 paragraph (2) of Law 16/2004 on the principal authorizes the attorney to represent the state or government in the areas of civil and administrative. Therefore, further Anwar, provision norms that give authority to the attorney to be a power of state or government in civil or administrative agency is very concerned with the position of attorney under the power of the executive, so natural that prosecution agencies of law enforcement function and at the same time defending the interests of the state or government in court for civil cases and state administration. The existence of a conflict of interest that the Petitioner has raised discriminatory treatment and implementation issues of legal uncertainty is the norm, that is associated with the prosecution and professionalism remains the domain of internal control and supervision of prosecution agencies.

"The issue of professionalism in carrying out their duties prosecutors are set out in the Code of Conduct as well as the attorney is duty and authority of the Code Commission and the Commission the Attorney Prosecutor to conduct oversight and internal controls in the professionalism of prosecutors. Based on legal considerations above, the Petitioners' arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 30 paragraph (2) of Law 16/2004 are not unreasonable under the law," explained Anwar. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)