Tomson Situmeang who pleaded for competences limitation of Judge, prosecutor, and investigator in taking copied decree and notaries summon in Notaries Occupancy Act revised his petition. Delivered by Charles Hutagalung, several justices’ pleading has been inferred into the revision.

One of the revisions comprises legal standing. The Plaintiff retained that he has fictional as determined in 1945 Constitution, which is attaining proper and fair treat for all of Indonesian citizens. This is seen as logical consequences of Indonesian principle as a legal-based state.   

“The Plaintiff whose profession is advocate, says that he has constitutional rights inherited from 1945 Constitution aligning legal-based state principle as determined in Article 1 verse (3) 1945 Constituion,” Charles said.

In the previous trial, Charles explained that the regulation hinders Plaintiff’s Constitutional Rights. The ruling of Article 66 verse (1) Act of Notaries gives negative consequences to the law enforcer, by the advocate, prosecutor, or Justice which may end up in the independency loss.   

Aside from it, Charles revealed that the Article gives an impression that, Justice, prosecutor, and investigator are situated below MKN. This happened because only under MKN’s authority the law enforcers can receive the copy of Decree or Notaries’ protocol.

In the trial, Justice Maria Farida Indrati who acted as Chief of Panels validated fourteens evidences attached in the petition. One of the evidences is the new Notaries Occupancy Act. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/kun)