The Constitutional Court (MK) refused to entirely petition Testing Act No. 10 of 1998 concerning Amendment to Law Number 7 of 1992 of the 1945 Constitution. Ruling of the number 82/PUU-IX/2011 was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD. He is assisted by eight constitutional justices on Wednesday (26/9) at the Plenary Court.

In the opinion of the Court that the Constitution was read by Judge Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Petitioners petition asking the Court to impose provisional interlocutory decision, ordered the North Jakarta District Court to stop or delay the sentence of imprisonment and fines to the applicant, as well as delaying the implementation effect of Article 49 paragraph (1) Banking Law c. "Against Petitioners' argument, the Court considered that the applicant requests provisional decision is not correct according to the law for several reasons, among which the Court not to hear the case of concrete as well as Petitioner petitioned the Court decision on norms in the Application Testing Act are erga omnes," he explained.

Fadlil explained in maintaining the principle of trust (fiduciary relation principle) and the precautionary principle (prudential principle), the Court is necessary to have rules or norms governing the sanctions or punishment for an act which is not good or bad faith of the internal banking in particular has been the deliberately do not comply with the norms or has violated the principles of banking so as to undermine public confidence in the banks and in turn will damage the national economy. Therefore, further Fadlil, rules on sanctions against persons who have violated the principles of banking, one of which stated in Article 49 paragraph (1) letter c of the Banking Law that has ensnared Petitioner, are the legal consequences that must be accepted by the Applicant as has violated the principles of banking adverse banking institution where she works, and harmful to society.

"That the rules of punishment / the minimum and maximum penalties provided for in Article 49 paragraph (1) letter c of the Banking Law, according to the Court it is a measure that has been clearly associated with the severity of the penalty to be imposed on a person who has violated the prohibited act by the provisions of the applicable legislation or actions that have been against the law. Therefore, it is irrelevant if the applicant relate the punishment meted out to him by the punishment meted out to the perpetrators of corruption offenses, criminal fraud, and so on, because of corruption, fraud and so is different from the unlawful act was done by the applicant, "he explained.

Furthermore, Fadlil describes the formulation in Article 49 paragraph (1) letter c of the Banking Act is a provision that formulation focuses on prohibited and punishable by the law. "So, regardless of the legal consequences are not a problem and reasonable if applied to the perpetrators of banking, which is not only detrimental to the banking itself, but it can happen that even further, which would be detrimental to the national economy," he said.

Then, Fadlil describes the minimum and maximum penal provisions in article a quo, other than a reflection of the determination to build confidence in the banking sector in the framework of national economic recovery, it is also intended to ensure that a person who has proven sentenced break, which in the view of forming legislation Law is law policy options open (opened legal policy) a proportionate, given that the impact of the act was very spacious and very touching interests of the nation and the state with national goals. "Moreover, a criminal offense under article quo is a criminal offense committed by intentionally (delict Dolus), so it is reasonable when convicted felonies. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court, Petitioner's arguments regarding the constitutionality test of Article 49 paragraph (1) letter c of the Banking Law unwarranted under the law," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)