The Constitutional Court (MK) held judicial review session of the Act 8 of 1981 on the Criminal Justice Act filed by Ferry Tansil, Tuesday (23/7). At this meeting Petitioner’s attorney, Frederich Yunadi conveyed that the applicant feels aggrieved by the provisions of the letter of punishment in Article 197 paragraph (1) letter l.

Frederich before a panel of judges led by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar said that Article 197 paragraph (1) letter l Criminal Code is very clear that the sentencing letters must include a day and date of the verdict, prosecutors name, the name of judge to decide, and the name of the clerk on duty. However, further Frederich, the high court and the Supreme Court, and in an extraordinary legal remedy (PK) the provisions of Article 197 was never mentioned.

"Our goal is filed Pak judicial review, the Constitutional Court is to see if the letter l is still dutifully, sir. So what still needs to be removed? We think it’s because the letter l occurs resulting in confusing laws that should be dropped as Article 197 paragraph (2). However, certain parties said that the void that remains yet to be executed. Well, so we filed a request with the Constitutional Court if it is in this case a law that raises multiple interpretations should be canceled," said Frederich.

In his petition, Petitioner states judicial aspects of Article 197 paragraph (1) Criminal Procedure Code the letter l is imperative and should not be cumulative so that none of these elements are not loaded or neglect include them in decision making can lead to criminal prosecution of the decision null and void. Petitioners also state sentencing verdict against the applicant does not contain provisions as implied in Article 197 paragraph (1) letter l Criminal Procedure Code must be interpreted as a whole and apply at all levels of court.

Responding to the petition, Hamdan Zoelva Panel members provide advice that can be used to repair the petition. Hamdan requested that the applicant outlining the factual losses suffered due to the provisions of Article 197 without the need to parse them normatively. "Factual what he feels, what disadvantages, or potential will surely happen. So do not exhaustively describe normatively. It’s just for entrance only to find out if you have legal standing to file the petition or not," Hamdan suggestion. (Yusti Nurul A. / Mh)