Court Rejects Reviewing Multiple Investigation and Prosecution of Corruption
Image


Reviewing the constitutionality of the dual authority of the investigation and prosecution of corruption by prosecutors, who are scattered in some of the Act, entered the stage of the pronunciation of the verdict. The Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (23/10/2012) afternoon, held a hearing decision pronunciation 16/PUU-X/2012 No. Happenings Testing the Law No. 16 Year 2004 on the Prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia (Law Attorney) and the Law 31 of 1999 on the Eradication of Corruption and Act No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Court in the ruling states rejected all requests by Iwan Budi Santoso, Mohammed Zainal Arifin, and Ardion Sitompul. "The verdict, prosecuting, said rejected Petitioners' petition for all," said Chairman of the Constitutional Court Plenum Moh. Mahfud MD 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 object of the petitioners Iwan Budi Santoso, Mohammed Zainal Arifin, and Ardion Sitompul is reviewing the constitutional provisions relating to the dual authority of the investigation and prosecution of corruption by prosecutors who are scattered in several laws, including Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d Law Attorney; Article 39 of the Anti-Corruption Law, and Article 44 paragraph (4) and paragraph (5), Article 50 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), subsection (3), and (4) of the Commission in particular the phrase "or prosecution "and the phrase" and / or prosecution "in the Law Commission. According to the applicant, such provisions contrary to the principle of the rule of law [see Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution], recognition, security, protection, and fair legal certainty and equal treatment before the law [vide Section 28D (1) Constitution 1945].

The Court, the 1945 Constitution does not prohibit such a dual function. Article 4 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution states, "The President of the Republic of Indonesia shall hold the power of government under the Constitution" and Article 20 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution states, "Every draft law discussed by the House of Representatives and the President for approval together."

"By the second chapter, the President than as a holder of the power of government (executive), also serves as a shaper of Law (legislative) together with the House of Representatives. Thus, the 1945 Constitution does not prohibit dual function," said Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim when reading the Opinion of the Court.

In addition, the Court also cited several considerations in Court Decision No. 28/PUU-V/2007 dated March 27, 2008 which in paragraph [3.13.6], among others to consider, "Thus the authority of the police as the sole investigator is not born out of the 1945 Constitution, but from Act". The word "fit" with the criminal law and other legislation allows law enforcement agencies such as the attorney is authorized to conduct an investigation. Meanwhile, Article 24 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution states, "Other bodies whose function is related to the judicial authorities shall be regulated by law. Law derived from the mandate of Article 24 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, among others, is Law Attorney. Article 30 paragraph (1) letter d Law Attorney says, "Conduct investigation of certain criminal by the Law".

"Based on the above considerations, the petitioners request that the authority given to the prosecutor's investigation in several criminal provisions specifically stated contrary to the 1945 Constitution, legally unreasonable," said Alim. (Nur Rosihin Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)


Tuesday, October 23, 2012 | 17:57 WIB 185