Constitutional Court resumed the trial testing of Article 8, paragraph (5) of Act 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor filed by former Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Antasari Azhar and Governmental Organization (NGO) Indonesian Anti-Corruption Society (MAKI) represented by Boyamin Saiman. According to the Petitioners, the permission of the Attorney General to the police must be done to carry out legal proceedings against prosecutors involved criminal cases.

In the trial which took place on Wednesday, 06/19/2013 to case number 55/PUU-XI/2013, chairman MAKI Boyamin explain to the judge-led constitutional Chief Justice Akil Mochtar, has made improvements to the petition in accordance with the advice constitutional judges in previous session. In addition there are additional clauses in the Basic Law (Constitution) which serve as the touchstone, namely Article 27 of the 1945 Constitution.

Added Boyamin, this petition also refers to the decision of the Court regarding the President’s approval of the principal areas involved criminal cases, as well as the decision of the Court in the case 49/PUU-X/2012, in which the Court decided a notary can be summoned by the police without having to seek the approval of the Supervisory Board Regional organizations notary profession.

In a previous trial on Wednesday, 05.06.2013, the petitioners complained Article 8 (5) petitioned for was often used as a shield by prosecutors involved in some criminal cases to not call the police in the investigation process. Conditions tested it reads "In terms of implementing the tasks referred to in paragraph (4) the prosecutor allegedly committing a crime, then call, inspection, search, arrest, and detention of the prosecutor in question can only be done with permission from the Attorney General."

After the hearing, Antasari who attended this meeting asserted was arrested in 2009 when he was still serving as an active prosecutor assigned by the Attorney General to the Commission and then elected as chairman. Antasari further revealed at the time of his arrest no permission from the Attorney General, so that should be going through the legal process null and void. "Because to be continued, so for what that article," said Azhar explained that the reason the test article.

In its claim, the applicant asked the Court stated that the provisions conflict with the constitution, so that the police can make arrests and detentions to prosecutors without any permission from the attorney general. (Ilham / mh)