Constitutional Court (MK) Law held a hearing review of Act 8/1981 of the Criminal Procedure Code - commonly abbreviated Case No. 102/PUU-XI/2013 - on Thursday (12/12) afternoon. Sanusi Wiradinata as the applicant is a businessman, a test of Article 77 letter a, Article 79, Article 81, Article 82 and Article 82 paragraph 1b paragraph 3a.

Through their attorney, Petrus Celestinus, suggests a number of reasons the Applicant conduct judicial Criminal Procedure governing pretrial reason. That the Applicant sure constitutional rights guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution has been harmed by the application of Article 77 letter a Criminal Code and some other related chapters.

Article 77 letter a has been reported as limiting the right of the Applicant to file pretrial criminal case to the District Court , the actions undertaken criminalization law enforcement officers , in this case at the Jakarta Police investigators .

"Among arresting illegal Applicant, he set as suspects illegally, and detain Petitioner for eleven days," said Petrus.

According to the Applicant, Article 77 letter a very unfair because Petitioner was not given the right to appeal pretrial judge to examine and decide upon the appropriate provisions in the law. Yet according to the facts , according to the Applicant , who can ‘ play ‘ with law enforcement officers reported not only the course , for example by issuing Termination of Investigation investigator Case ( SP3 ) is not valid.

"But it was the complainant who is known to work as a ‘ puppet ‘ and is part of the legal mafia lawyer who is often known Lucas ‘ play ‘ with law enforcement officers to establish reported as suspects illegally and publish the complete status of the case files illegally," said Petrus.

The applicant saw the phrase "a. Legitimate or not the termination of the investigation or prosecution termination " contained in Article 77 letter a Criminal Code is a source of injustice and discriminatory law and does not give equal rights to the reported price , so it needs to be changed or added phrases to defend the rights reported . So that Article 77 reads a letter, "a.The validity of the arrest, detention, investigation termination, termination of the prosecution, the determination of the suspect or suspects’ prosecution”.

The applicant explained as a direct effect of Article 77 letter a change, and then a few chapters that are directly related to Article 77 must be adjusted. For example , the new Article 79 which states," Request for examination of the validity of an arrest , detention , determination of the suspect or suspects prosecution , filed by the suspect , family or their proxies to the chairman of the district court stating the reasons . "

While Article 81, according to the Petitioner, changed to " Request for compensation and rehabilitation as a result of the determination of invalidity of the suspect or suspects prosecution, due to the invalidity of the arrest or detention or a termination due to his legal investigation or prosecution, filed by the suspect or third party concerned to the head of the court country citing the reason." (NanoTresnaArfana / mh )