The Constitutional Court decided to request the testing of Law No.10 of 1998 concerning Amendment to Law Number 7 of 1992 against the 1945 Constitution granted in part. Decision Number 64/PUU-X/2012 was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Mahfud MD, accompanied by eight other constitutional judges in Plenary Room Floor 2 Building the Constitutional Court.

"Declare to grant the petition partly," said Mahfud MD read the verdict petition filed by Magda Safrina.

In the opinion of the Court that the Constitution was read by Judge Harjono, joint property (gono-gini) acquired during the marriage, including property held by a husband and / or wife in a bank in the form of savings, deposits and other banking products are jointly owned property husband and wife who are protected under the Constitution.

In addition, according to the Court, would better meet the customer’s sense of justice when the data should also be opened for the benefit of civil justice related to the common property, as community property is property with a husband and wife, so the husband and / or wife should receive the protection of the rights and should not be taken arbitrarily by either party.

Later, the Court also found, when Article 40 paragraph (1) of Banking declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution as a whole and therefore has no binding legal force; it will lead to the absence of protection of bank secrecy, mistrust causing harm to banks and customers the national economy.

Regarding the provision of Article 40 paragraph (2) of the Banking argued against the Constitution of 1945, according to the Court, such provision is to affiliated parties not to individual citizens. The affiliated party in accordance with Article 1 of the Banking Law number 22 is a member of the board of commissioners, supervisors, directors or attorneys, officers, or employees of the bank. Later, board members, supervisors, managers or attorneys, officers, or employees of the bank, especially for cooperative banks incorporated in accordance with the legislation in force and those who provide services to banks, including public accountants, appraisers, consultants and legal other consultants and parties, according to Bank Indonesia participated influence bank management, including shareholder and his family, the commissioner, superintendent families, family directors, family caretaker.

"If any provision is declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution, the affiliated parties can find customer data that should be kept secret. It was to the detriment of the bank customers that impact the loss of confidence in banks and hurt the national economy," said M. Akil Mochtar also read the opinion of the Court. Thus, continued Akil, the provision does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution and therefore the argument is groundless petition according to law.

To note, the Petitioner at the previous session of the division of matrimonial property disputes (gonogini) in the case of marriage breakdown because divorce is a frequent occurrence in the wider community, which often ended with the material loss suffered by one party to the dispute, and where the loss has been or may occur due to bank secrecy under Article 40 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 1998 concerning Amendment to Law Number 7 of 1992.

In addition, the applicant also stated that His position in the marriage protected by law and the Constitution in force in the Republic of Indonesia, then to property acquired by either the husband or the wife, either individually or jointly, in which the asset acquired during the period of marriage so that the position of the asset in the eyes of the law and the Constitution is the joint property (gono-gini) as stipulated in Law No. 1 of 1974 on Marriage Article 35 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 36 , and Article 37 and clarified in Article 1 letter f KHI applicable under Instruction No. 1 of 1991. (Utami Argawati)