Testing the constitutionality of Article 244 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Code (Criminal Code) filed by H. K. M.Kes assessed obscure (obscuur libel) by the Constitutional Court (MK), due to the conflict between the arguments in the petition and the arguments between the posita and the petition. As a result, in Decision No. 71/PUU-X/2012 injunction, the Court declared the petition Idrus unacceptable. "To declare the petition cannot be accepted," said Chairman of the Constitutional Court Plenum Moh. Mahfud MD. He was accompanied by eight judges, Achmad Sodiki, Muhammad Alim, Maria Farida Indrati, Anwar Usman, Hamdan Zoelva, Harjono, Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, and M. Akil Mochtar, the pronunciation of the verdict in the trial Court, on Tuesday (10/23/2012) afternoon.

Idrus examined the provisions of Section 244 Criminal Procedure Code relating to the authority of the Public Prosecutor for checking whether or not to apply for an appeal to the Supreme Court which reads, "Against the ruling, criminal cases are given at the last by a court other than the Supreme Court, the defendant or the prosecutor examination may request an appeal to the Supreme Court unless the acquittal ". This is thought contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

When applying to the Court on July 11, 2012 last, K. was awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court at the request of the Public Prosecutor appeal inspection Negri Lubuk Sikaping Attorney dated July 9, 2008, against the decision of the Court of Negri Lubuk Sikaping Number 55/Pid/2007/Pn.Lbs dated June 19, 2008.

The problems faced Idrus, namely in 2004, the Government through the Ministry of Social Affairs provides grants to Pasaman be 100 cows to 100 families (families) who are less able. At that time, IDUs served as Head of Social Services, Family Planning and Women's Empowerment Pasaman, which served to guide the group through the ranks of the poor households in the bottom. 

In late 2006 the State Attorney (Kejari) Lubuk Sikaping shall summon the Idrus for investigation of grants in 2004. At that time also Idrus named as a suspect and arrested at LP Lubuk Sikaping for 7 months 10 days. During their detention, Idrus double checked by Kejari Lubuk Sikaping for allegedly accepting money from KUBE FM Rp 1,200,000 and indict Idrus have caused state losses of Rp 20,000,000.

In 2008, the District Court made the decision freely Lubuk Sikaping purely to Idrus by Decision No. 55/Pid/2007/PN.Lbs Date June 19, 2008, with the help of reason the cow is a grant, in accordance with the Cooperation Agreement between the Ministry of Social Affairs with Regent Agam Number 53/HUK/2004. Then on July 9, 2008 the Public Prosecutor (Prosecutor) Kejari Lubuk Sikaping inspection request to the Supreme Cassation Court (MA) on the basis of legal jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Fixed Number K/275/Pid/1983, derived from Article 244 Criminal Procedure Code, because the prosecutor thought Lubuk Sikaping District Court Decision is not pure free. Until now, Idrus not get the appeal decision of the Supreme Court. Being discriminatory and do not get legal certainty, then he asked review of Article 244 Code of Criminal Procedure to the Court.

Idrus asked the Court are two options to break the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 244. First invoke the Court declared Section 244 Criminal Procedure Code meaningful. That is, the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 244 shall remain valid and do not conflict with the 1945 Constitution, along with the consequence that the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court through the Supreme Court Reg. Number 275K/Pid/1983 contrary to Article 244 Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable. Consequences follow the decision of another Lubuk Sikaping District Court for cases of Idrus becomes legally binding.

Second, Idrus also requested that the Court declare Article 244 Code of Criminal Procedure does not mean, that declared contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 244 of the 1945 Constitution and is not legally binding, with the consequence that all the provisions are based on the provisions of Section 244 Criminal Procedure Code, one of Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court through the Court Decision Court Reg. Number 275K/Pid/1983, also declared non-significant, so the verdict on the case PN Lubuk Sikaping Idrus be legally enforceable.

According to the Court, there is a conflict between the arguments within and between posita and petition in Idrus petition. On one side of the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 244 K. argues was not significant. On the other hand, argued that Article 244 Criminal Procedure Code Idrus meaningful. In addition, if the argument is associated with the posita, then the petition proposition and also contradictory. Moreover Idrus begged Verdict PN Lubuk Sikaping the case Idrus be legally enforceable.

"On the basis of discrepancies between the arguments in the petition and the arguments presented in the petition posita, then according to the Court, the application for a quo obscures (obscuur libel). Therefore, the Court need not consider more about the authority of the Court, legal status (legal standing) The applicant, and the principal issue," said Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi when reading the authority of the Court in this decision. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)