Fahmi Ardiansyah, a student who became prisoners due to stealing clothing valued at Rp. 400 thousands filed petition of four acts to the Constitutional Court (MK). In a session led by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar, Petitioner, represented by his legal counsel Tonin Tachta Singarimbun apply for judicial review of Act 5/2004 on the Supreme Court (MA), Act 39/2008 of the Ministry of State, Act 16/2004 on the Attorney of the Republic of Indonesia, and Act 2 / 2002 on the Indonesian National Police against the 1945Constitution on Tuesday, 05.14.2013.

Petitioner essentially judge the fourth of the Act makes Supreme Court, Attorney, National Police, and Ministry of Law and Human Rights do not comply with the memorandum of understanding that was made by the four institutions based SEMA and Supreme Court Regulation (Perma). In the memorandum of understanding, SEMA and Perma stated that the perpetrators of the crime of theft are worth less than Rp. 2.5 million is included in the category of minor criminal offenses (tipiring). Tonin stated his client should not have been jailed for 3 months 15 days, if the law abiding four institutions in implementing the memorandum of understanding, the existing Perma and SEMA should be included in tipiring. 

Judge Advice

The request with the case number 42/PUU-XI/2013, Akil Mochtar stated chapters and four Law delivered Petitioner in his petition does not have a causal relationship to the loss suffered by the Petitioner. In addition Petitioner more questioned the implementation of the norm.

While the Constitutional Court Justice Anwar Usman advises that the applicant can explain the causal relationship of the tested norms with constitutional harm experienced by the Applicant. "Please look for connection between the articles of the law were tested by the applicant, the applicant’s case suffered," said Anwar. Anwar further reminded the applicant, if the petition is granted could lead Supreme Court become paralyzed.

The same thing also expressed by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, "The person that was arrested yes indeed a loss, but not a constitutional impairment," said Fadlil. According applicant must be able to demonstrate opposition norms tested with several articles of the Constitution. Fadlil even questioned the purpose of the petition.

"Try attorney check back to your client wants what? Should not Supreme Court judge, whether the prosecutor should not be doing the prosecution again, the police should not make an arrest?" asked Fadlil.

Responding to advice the judges, Tonin said it had raised objections to the judge in court regarding the SEMA and Perma freed tipiring perpetrators of imprisonment. But the trial judge and the prosecutor stated Perma and SEMA cannot be implemented because it does not have the technical instructions. Tonin fourth thought if this law was canceled only problem better, and create a new law.

Submitted by him, direct applicant taking the test process and the Law on the Constitutional Court that the trial judge did not report to the Judicial Commission as many other prisoners who are experiencing similar things to the petitioner, since there may be someone who does tipiring but got the same punishment to criminals. Tonin hopes if the petition is filed then justice can be upheld. (Ilham / mh)