Regulation in which rules investigation of DPR (People’s Representative Council), contained in Act 17/2014 (UU MD3), was pleaded to MK on Thursday (8/28). The lawsuit was filed by Judicial Crime Renewal Society and individual Applicants.  

In its demand, the Plaintiffs see that the ruling Act harms their Constitutional Rights. According to the Plaintiff, the regulation is a form of limitation and intervention, accomplished by beyond legal system institution, RI DPR Honorably Court and potentially interrupt the dignity of law enforcement apparatus. Plaintiffs see that this was caused by complicated procedure for a crime investigation to be done to any DPR member. “Within the ruling, investigation will be hampered and APBN (State Budget) would be burdened, Plaintiffs who contribute in APBN feel weighed,” she explained.  

The Plaintiffs consider the 30-day due would be giving a chance for suspected DPR member to erase his/her crime trace. These barriers are a form of intervention and oppose effective and efficient principle of criminal investigation.

The Plaintiffs also argued that the Act harm the principle of equality, because DPR member are also subject in term of criminal investigation. The regulation is seen hindering legal process. “To that basis, Plaintiffs ask MK to annul Article 245 Act 17/2014 (UU MD3) as the Article oppose 1945 Constitution,” he explained.     

Justice Aswanto advised for several changes, he reminds that the evidences are still drafted bill. “Draft bill is different to Act, some changes could really being pondered in the House. You should stitch the Act not the bill,” he explained.

Meanwhile, to the legal standing of the Plaintiff, Maria said that their standing is unclear. “Your Constitutional loss is not clear, act of concern can’t be acknowledged,” Maria added.(Lulu Anjarsari/mh)