If the verdict of the High Court have already mentioned the type and length of sentence, then for no command "must go" in the verdict of the Supreme Court (MA), self-convicted person must be detained or taken into custody," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Mahfud MD, Tuesday, 05/03/2013, in a press conference held on the 15th floor of the Court House, which occurred related polemic against the decision of the Court 69/PUU-X/2012 number, the test article 197 paragraph (1) letter k of Act No. 81/1981 on Criminal Proceedings.

Together with Constitutional Justice Muhammad Alim and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, Mahfud asserts that the Court should clarify this issue again, because some statements stating convicted of corruption executed by the Attorney General refused (AGO), to take refuge in the Constitutional Court’s decision related to the terms of detention prisoners. According to Mahfud, the decision uttered on 22 November 2012 and the last is actually strengthens AGO justify that has been going on before the release of the Constitutional Court decision.

Mahfud discloses, "Whatever decision of the Court is always used as a weapon, and currently there are obstructing the Supreme Court decision that Attorney trouble." Court sentence is not imposed a new law, but confirms that made by the Attorney General so far is correct, i.e. put to prison so no verdict MA, although there is no command "must go". Therefore, the enactment of the Constitutional Court verdict has nothing to do with the question of retroactive or non-retroactive, because it reinforces the old one.

According to Mahfud, it is wrong to use the Constitutional Court verdict as an excuse, because the Court actually said they were the prisoners should be immediately executed. "Do not play by using court decisions for the Court would be fighting," Mahfud reminded.

While the Constitutional Court Justice Muhammad Alim explains, the appeal is from the Dutch kasatie absorption, which means the cancellation, if the MA states rejected an appeal means there is no cancellation of the person’s criminal penalties. "The Court is not authorized to cancel the Supreme Court decision, that there has to be valid and not void," said Alim.

Description Alim also confirmed by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, explaining the background of Act or the Criminal Code of Criminal Procedure where Yusril Ihza Mahendra a lawyer in the case, and the applicant’s petition requested that the Supreme Court decision that does not include Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k Criminal Procedure Act, which reads "a requirement that the defendant be detained or kept in custody or released" are illegal and against the constitution.

Described the former Vice Chairman of the High Religious Court of Yogyakarta, in its decision the Court rejected the petitioner, but the Court must give meaning that the content of Article 197 paragraph (1) in accordance with the other provisions of the Act.

Fadlil strengthens Mahfud MD and M. Alim informations that which has been carried out by the Supreme Court and the Attorney General is correct, that the Supreme Court decision which does not include the requirements in Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k is not null and void. (Ilham/ mh)