Constitutional Court (MK) cannot accept the petition filed by Samady Singarimbun on the rules unlawfully expand the element of corruption. Thus the decision to No. 44/PUU-IX/2013 read by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar accompanied by a seven other judges on Tuesday ( 17/9 ) at Plenary Court. "To declare the petition cannot be accepted," said Akil.

In the opinion of the Court was delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva, the Court never decide upon the constitutionality of Article 2 paragraph ( 1 ) and the elucidation of Article 2 paragraph ( 1 ) of the Law on Corruption Eradication through Decision No. 003/PUU-IV / 2006 dated July 25, 2006.

In the petition, the Court considers the elucidation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Act PTPK the first sentence, it is incompatible with the protection and guarantee of legal certainty contained in Article 28D paragraphs (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Thus, the elucidation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Act PTPK round of the phrase "What is meant by ‘unlawfully’ in this article include actions against the law in the sense of the formal and material sense, ie, even if such actions are not governed by laws and regulations, but if such actions are deemed reprehensible because it does not fit with the sense of justice or social norms in society, such actions may be liable", should be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

Based on the Court’s consideration, said Hamdan, even though there are fundamental differences between the test application with application number 003/PUUIV/2006, namely Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (2), and Article 28I (2) of the 1945 Constitution, but the petition concerning the constitutionality of Article 2 paragraph (1) and the elucidation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Act on PTPK is essentially the same as the number 003/PUU-IV/2006 application and have been considered by the Court in its Decision number 003/PUU-IV/2006, dated July 25, 2006." So the request is ne bis in idem," said Hamdan.

While upon demands of Applicants for the Court to declare any state apparatus / government who was sentenced to Article 2 paragraph (1) letter of Corruption Act is a criminal verdict is null and void as Article 197 paragraph (1) letter f and paragraph (2) in conjunction with Article 143 paragraph (3) of Law No. 8 of 1981 on Criminal Procedure, according to the Court, it is not related to the norms of the 1945 Constitution.

"Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court petition ne bis in idem and not the issue of constitutionality of the norm," said Hamdan.

Samady Singarimbun a suspected corruption case acquitted at the court of first instance. Rangkas Bitung District Court stated Applicant was innocence. However, on appeal, Petitioner was convicted of violating these provisions. Consequently, the applicant must now serve time in prison Sukamiskin, Bandung. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)