---

The Constitutional Court rejected the review of Act 17/2011 on State Intelligence. According to the Court, the arguments of the petitioners was not unreasonable under the law and the law is being tested does not conflict with the Constitution of 1945. "Declare reject Petitioners' petition for all," said the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD, Wednesday (10/10) in Rang Plenary Court.

In the Decision on Case No. 7/PUU-X/2012, the Court divided into three principal considerations, namely regarding: 1) The role, functions and powers of intelligence, 2) secret intelligence, and 3) Issues institutional / institutional intelligence.

According to the Court, the Petitioners' argument on Article 26 in conjunction with Article 44 and Article 45 of the Law on Intelligence is not contrary to the rule of law and the principles of recognition, security, protection, and fair legal certainty and equality before the law as intended by Article 1, paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. "Therefore, the argument of the petitioners a quo was unwarranted by law."

Similarly, the definition of "threats" that are open to multiple interpretations by the Petitioner, the Court argued, depends on the application of the definition. Therefore, the Court continued, drafting legislation for the implementation of the Law on Intelligence should respect the law, democratic values and human rights, as well as the execution of intelligence activities shall be in accordance with applicable law (due process of law).

"That the desire of the applicant to be described as rigid definition of the threat, it will limit the movement of intelligence, because when there is a threat other than those specified by the Act a quo, intelligence can not perform duties and responsibilities but it turns out things are not regulated threatens or endanger the sovereignty, territorial integrity of states, and the safety of the entire nation, "said the Court.

Therefore, according to the Court, the Petitioners' arguments that question the limits understanding, abbreviations or other matters of a general nature are used as a basis / foundation for subsequent chapters in the Intelligence Act, it is unreasonable and is not appropriate, because the construction of the provisions The picture and it has given clear direction regarding what constitutes a threat.

"Based on the above considerations, the Court, the Petitioners' argument about the meaning of 'threat' set out in Article 1 paragraph 4 of Law 17/2011 are not unreasonable under the law," said the Court.

Functions related to the provision of intelligence and law enforcement functions, the Court concluded, have explicitly separated the Intelligence Act. Law enforcement functions should still be held by the police and prosecutors, and cannot be transferred to intelligence officials. Intelligence is part of an early warning system which has no enforcement authority. Based on these considerations, the Court, the Petitioners' argument that Article 4 of the Law on Intelligence stated unwarranted by law.

Similarly relevant authority of the State Intelligence Agency to make recommendations to the relevant policymakers person and / or certain foreign institutions were also questioned by the Petitioner. According to the Court, the authority to make recommendations and / or foreign institution to which a citizen of Indonesia, living, visiting, working, researching, studying, or set up a representative in Indonesia, and the financial transactions that could potentially threaten the security and national interests, carried out in framework of early warning and early detection of a person from abroad.

The existence of such authority, the Court continued, hopefully will be able to prevent, resolve, reduce and avoid such events / hazards which will befall and protect the security and national interests. Therefore, the Court holds, BIN the authority to make recommendations relating to the person and / or foreign institutions do not conflict with the 1945 Constitution.

The petition was filed by several organizations, namely: Society for Participatory Society Initiative for Transitional Justice (IMPARSIAL), Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), the Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation (YLBHI), Equal Society, the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI), along with 13 other individual applicants.

In the petition, the Petitioners filed on testing: Article 1 paragraph (4); Article 1 paragraph (6); Article 1 paragraph (8); Article 4; Article 6 paragraph (3) along the phrase "and / or against the interests of the other party and national security "; Article 22 paragraph (1) during the phrase" Intelligence organizers States referred to in Article 9, paragraph b, c, d, and e '; Article 25 paragraph (2), Article 25 paragraph (4); Article 26 in conjunction with Article 44 in conjunction with Article 45; Article 29 letter d in conjunction with Article 29 paragraph d Explanation; Article 31 in conjunction with Article 34 in conjunction with Article 34 paragraph explanation (1), Article 32 paragraph (2) letter c; elucidation of Article 32 paragraph (1) along the phrase "The term" legislation "is this law", and Article 36 of the Law on State Intelligence. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)

---