Polemic that occurred among law enforcement due to differences in the interpretation of the phrase "under arrest" and "detention" contained in Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k Act No. 8 of 1981 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) which reads "the command that the defendant be detained or remain in custody or be released", encouraging Taufik Basari who works as an advocate filed a petition for a constitutional interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code and asked the Constitutional Court (MK) on the second phrase. Orders regarding custody status, whether the defendants were arrested, remain in custody or are released, according to Article 197 paragraph (1) shall be published in the sentencing decision letter.

Examination of the case in a preliminary hearing 53/PUU-XI/2013, Wednesday, 05.15.2013, Taufik Basari explained to the panel of judges led by chairman M. Akil Mochtar, that the application of article 197 paragraph (1) letter k is never heard and ruled on by the Court in case number 69/PUU-X/2012, where the Court stated in its decision rejected the petition and declared the article does not violate the constitution, and stated that sentencing decisions are not inserting Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k does not lead to the decision null and void. But Taufik stated arguments in testing time are different with the previous application.

Taufik said, although the Court has issued a ruling in the testing clause proposed by Parlin Riduansyah, but the decision led to different interpretations of the law enforcement, and a lot of certain parties who twist the meaning of Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k by using decision MK. This is evident from the conflict between the prosecution and the Indonesian National Police (INP), in the West Java Police, in the case of Susno Duadji execution.

Taufik believed the phrase "under arrest" and "detention" in the petitioned article regulates the detention of the accused for the purpose of examination that the trial has nothing to do with punishment, so he asked the Constitutional Court gave constitutional interpretation that Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k KUHAP all phrases "arrest" and "detention" is interpreted by the definition contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial for the purpose of examination.

Against the petition, Justice Hamdan Zoelva give advice, that the actual decision of the Court in the case before is clear, without any provision mentioned in Article 197 paragraph (1) letter k criminal court decisions remain valid and not void, so the interpretation of the debate should be over .

While Akil Mochtar said petition is deemed question the decision of the Court. "You provoked us to debate the decision of the Court," said Akil. According to Akil, Applicant arguments more struggling to guarantee legal certainty and it are no different from the previous request that the Court has been disconnected. Akil also questioned the applicant presented examples of polemic. "Is it true that the decision polemical? Is it true polemic raises constitutional rights?" said Akil.

According to him, every decision of the Court has always been controversial, and it’s a regular thing, what else is a landmark decision. Akil asked the applicant to revise their petition, especially about the polemic arguments put forward applicant, whether it is a law polemic it is legal or constitutional norms polemic which is the authority of the Court to resolve.

Taufik said after the trial is likely this petition decided by the Constitutional Court cannot be accepted, but he did not question it, because with this application the Court may provide an explanation regarding the petitioned article by him so they can stop the polemic that took place between law enforcement lately. (Ilham / mh)