Central Tapanuli Regent Raja Bonaran Situmeang filed a petition for the content of the Act 8/1981 on Criminal Code (KUHAP), which regulates the general sense "suspect" and the basis for arrestment and detention to the Constitutional Court (MK). Initial trial case with No. 117 / PUU-XII / 2014 was held by the Constitutional Court on Tuesday (11/11) at the Plenary Room.

In the trial, Petitioner, represented by Tommy Sitohang, explained the applicant\'s constitutional rights were violated due to the effect of Article 1 paragraph 14, Article 17, and Article 21 paragraph (1) KUHAP. According to the Applicant, the articles set series of chapters relating to the determination of the suspect, accompanied by sufficient preliminary evidence, but are also ambiguous.

In the petition, the Petitioner hinted that Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has impaired his constitutional right in a series of investigations against Petitioner, while the Commission failed to show sufficient preliminary evidence. Determination of the Petitioner is followed by the detention of suspects by the KPK could be illegal because it was done in the case to locate and collect evidence in order to find the suspects, in other words, the Commission establishes Applicant as a suspect and make an arrestment without sufficient preliminary evidence.  "In doing so, as it turns out in the Criminal Code itself there is no limit as to what constitutes sufficient preliminary evidence. Similarly, the implementation of other forceful measures such as arrestment and detention are vulnerable to constitutional violations, "said Tommy

Applicant deemed that compared to Article 1, point 14, Article 17, and Article 21 KUHAP, Article 183, provides that a judge may not impose on a criminal, unless with at least two valid evidence, he gained the belief that it actually occurred and that the defendant is guilty of doing so, the provision of sufficient preliminary evidence and sufficient evidence in Article 1, point 14, Article 17 and Article 21 paragraph (1) may be interpreted ambiguous. This very dangerous and arbitrary. "If the accused wrongdoing assessment is solely determined by such beliefs, espoused intime conviction evidentiary system, because it is subjectively hidden and difficult to measure," he said.

For that reason in its provisions petition, the Petitioner requested that the Court order the Commission to stop, or at least delay the investigation by Warrant Investigation No. Sprin.Dik-36/01/08/2014 dated August 15, 2014. "Accept and grant the petition for Article 1 item 14, Article 17, and Article 21 paragraph (1) of Law 8/1981 KUHAP aligns 1945 Constitution, to the extent that it is not interpreted: preliminary evidence sufficient and adequate evidence in determining suspects and make an arrest, "he explained.

Responding to the petition, the Panel, led by Anwar Usman suggested improvements to the applicant. Constitutional Justice, Maria suggested the applicant to reduce explanation of concrete cases be due to effect of articles that examined by the applicant. "Here, more concretely cases, so it is better than the contested provisions of the articles used as the touchstone. Stone the test, the three chapters that can be directly on each chapter or all at once in the article. It should be noted, "She advised. (Lulu Anjarsari/ mh/kun).