The phrase ‘... interested third parties ...’ contained in Article 80 of Act 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) conditional unconstitutional extent not understood "including witnesses or complainants, non-governmental organizations or social organizations". Thus the ruling of the Constitutional Court numbered 98/PUU-X/2012 read by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar, assisted by eight other constitutional judges on Tuesday (21/5).

With this verdict, the victim or witness reporting, non-governmental organizations or social organizations are included in the definition of "interested third parties" as set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure Article 80 can apply for a preliminary hearing on the legitimacy of termination of the investigation or prosecution.

"To grant the petition; phrase ‘interested third parties’ in Article 80 of Act 8 of 1981 on Criminal Proceedings against the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945 along not interpreted’ including witnesses or complainants, non-governmental organizations or social organizations” said Akil in Plenary Room.

The ruling of the Court also stated "The phrase ‘interested third parties’ in Article 80 of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure does not have binding legal force throughout the camp does not mean’ including witnesses or complainants, non-governmental organizations or organizations society’. This decision relates to the verdict pronounced 76/PUU-X/2012 Numbers on January 8, 2013 ago.

Described by Judge Hamdan Zoelva, that the Constitutional Court’s decision, although the Criminal Procedure Code Number 76/PUU-X/2012 not provide a clear interpretation of who can be categorized as an interested third party, but according to the Court, which referred to the third party concerned is not only witness to a crime victim or complainant, but must also be interpreted broadly. Thus, the interpretation of the third party in the article is not only limited to the victim or complainant only witnesses but also have to include the wider community in this case can be represented by a bevy of people who have similar interests and goals which is to fight for the public interest (public advocacy interests ) such as NGOs or other community organizations because essentially the Criminal Procedure Code are legal instruments to enforce the criminal law. "The role of the public good and individual citizens or associations of people who have similar interests and goals to fight for the public interest (public advocacy interests) is needed in the supervision of law enforcement," said Hamdan.

In addition, Hamdan explained norm filed by the Petitioner in the case is the same with the norm being applied for in the petition No. 76/PUU-X/2012, but the intent plea in case No. 76/PUU-X/2012 is to narrow the interpretation of the phrase "the interested third "in Article 80 of Law 8/1981 so that the application is rejected. While the purpose of this petition, said Hamdan, is the opposite, namely to broaden the interpretation of the phrase "interested third parties" in Article 80 of Law 8/1981. Therefore the purpose of this petition request is in line with the Court’s judgment in case No. 76/PUU-X/2012 mentioned above, the legal reasoning in the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 76/PUU-X/2012 mutatis mutandis also be a consideration in this petition. "Based on the above considerations, the Court considers the arguments of the applicant legal grounds," he explained.

Applicant has been active in efforts to prevent and eradicate corruption and law enforcement in general who are members of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI) that have been and will be harmed by the constitutional rights of entry into force of Article 80 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the sense of a narrow interpretation of the third party concerned is restricted witnesses and the victim or witness is represented by the state police officers and prosecutors.

Petitioner has filed a pretrial matter of corruption as interested third parties but not received by reason of Petitioner’s right to sue the third party concerned as not regulated by law and there is a provision that limits the space for the applicant to participate in the prevention and eradication of corruption and law enforcement. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)