Judicial Review of Act 8 of 1981 on Criminal Code (Criminal Code) re-tested in the Constitutional Court on Monday (15/10) afternoon. This time, petitioned for by the Criminal Procedure Code and Supriyadi Boyamin as a member of Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI). Constitutional judges who presided at the trial were Hamdan Zoelva, accompanied by Maria Farida Indrati and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi respectively as members.

Petitioner case 98/PUU-X/2012 invoke rules regarding pretrial Article 79 Criminal Procedure Code which states, "Request an examination of whether or not a lawful arrest or detention filed by the accused, their families or their proxies to the chairman of the district court stating the reasons." And, Article 80 said, "Demand for checking whether or not a valid termination of the investigation or prosecution may be brought by the investigator or prosecutor or interested third parties to the chairman of the district court stating the reasons.

Applicability of the chapter, said the applicant, has impaired his constitutional rights. Therefore, the petitioners have repeatedly filed pretrial matters of corruption as interested third parties as outlined in the legislation. However, they said, the submission is not accepted for reasons not interested third parties.

On the other hand, said the applicant, the sue right as interested third parties have not stipulated in the law, and there are provisions that limit the space for the applicant to participate in the prevention and fight against corruption and law enforcement. Therefore, said the applicant, the acid test in this application is Article 1 Paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Next in petitum, the petitioners pleaded to the Court that Article 80 of the Act declared unconstitutional along interpreted as, "... interested third parties ..." is "every citizen, the public is represented NGOs or community organizations."

In this petition, the Constitutional Council gave some advice to the petition of the Petitioners. Said Hamdan, the applicant must describe in more detail what the losses suffered by the applicant with the article being tested. "You need to elaborate a bit more detail about the legal standing (legal standing), and losses due to the article's constitutional," said Hamdan.

"So there are some criteria, what is constitutional. Brother can see several Court decisions," added Hamdan.

Fadlil Sumadi also provided advice to the applicant. According to him, the petition of the Petitioners should be improved even more. Because the petition of the Petitioners, he added, was not described clearly and in detail what is desired by the proposed Act. "A lot of things need to be fixed. (Petitioners' petition) are less sharp," he said. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)