The trial continued on reviewing Act 11/2012 About Children Criminal Justice System Act held again at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (3/12) at the Plenary Court. The case was filed by Number 110/PUU-X/2012 Mohammad Saleh as Chairman of the Indonesian Association of Judges (IKAHI).

In court petition repair, Petitioner is done some improvements on the advice of the judges of the Constitution in the previous trial. Relevant legal position, the applicant changed its legal position of individual citizenship. "Then also Petitioners have included clauses in the 1945 Constitution as a touchstone. Article 96, Article 100 and Article 101 Juvenile Justice System Act violated Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 24 paragraph (1), Article 24d paragraph (1) and Article 28 of the 1945 Constitution," he explained.

Political implications of the law on the criminalization of the judge, then it has violated the independence of courts and judges, as guaranteed by Article 1, paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. Then Article 96 of Juvenile Justice System Act violates the principle of legal certainty and protection guarantees justice for every citizen including the judge in carrying out its functions under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. "Against the criminalization of the political implications of article can be categorized as a discriminatory act so contrary to Article 28 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. In conclusion, the Applicant concludes lawmakers criminalize judges through the operation of Section 96, Article 100, and Article 101 Juvenile Justice System Act and violating the independence of judges and the judiciary," he said.

In the trial, the panel of judges, chaired by Judge Anwar Usman, accompanied by Judge Maria Farida Indrati and Achmad Sodiki passed five evidences submitted by the applicant. "Later this petition we will report to the Consultative Meeting and will discuss whether to proceed or just until this trial alone. Later Registrar who will call you back, "he explained.

Petitioner in his petition argued that Article 96, Article 100, and Article 101 of Law Juvenile Justice System more emphasis on the emotional assessment (the emotional value laden judgment approach) of the Constituent. Emotional Assessment does not have clear objectives and are not accompanied by consideration of whether the balance / fit between criminalization efforts with the goal to be achieved. Criminalization of politics in defining the act as an offense under the provisions of Article 96, Article 100, and Article 101 of Law SPPA no longer oriented to the policy (policy-oriented approach) and in value (value judgment approach). Such provisions do not contain the principles of criminalization, and the purpose of punishment / presence / function of criminal law, so that the formulation of the provision does not reflect the principle of justice.

As defined in Article 6 Paragraph (1) of Letter g Act 12 In 2011 On Establishment of legislation. Efforts to criminalize the provision of Article 96, Article 100, and Article 101 of Law SPPA are a form of excess criminalization, because the articles are in principle not eligible / criteria of criminalization, because it is more administrative. Efforts to criminalize the provision of Article 96, Article 100, and Article 101 of Law SPPA is a form of exceeding boundaries of the criminal law, because of the use of criminal law in such provisions already passed its authority. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)