Crime Procedures Revolution Society and some plaintiffs revised their petition over Article 17/2014 (UU MD3). Led by Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams, the revision comprises legal standing, application points, and petitum.

Erasmus Napitupulu, the Attorney, said that Supriyadi Widodo whose constitutional rights harmed by the ruling of Article 245 UU MD3, objected that his occupation might be barred since the regulation prolongs investigation process for any case impinging parliament members.   

In substance, the regulation determines that investigation of parliament members must be done under DPR Honorary Council approval. That’s squashing the water, Honorary Council consisting of DPR members themselves. Such condition widens the gap of justice, scrapping non-discrimination principle.

In the first hearing, the Plaintiffs objected that the ruling Act harms their Constitutional Rights. According to the Plaintiff, the regulation is a form of limitation and intervention, accomplished beyond legal system institution, DPR Honorably Assembly 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. The Plaintiffs consider the 30-day due would be giving a enough time 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 opposes 1945 Constitution,” Plaintiff explained. (Hanifah/Anjarsari/mh/kun)