Applicant of Article 231 paragraph (3) Criminal Code (KUHP) revised their petition. In Aswanto-led hearing, attorney Rinaldi delivered the revisions.

First, related to Constitutional Court’s authorities. The Plaintiff has added Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a Act 8/2011 about MK and Article 29 paragraph (1) Act 48/2009 about Judicial Power. According to the norm, Constitutional Court is competent to hold first and final phase of judicial review ahead of the 1945 Constitution.  

About the Plaintiff’s legal standing, Rinaldi explained the implication of the Article 231 paragraph (3) KUHP is ambiguous. In return, the Plaintiff may get his rights harmed as DKI Bank, which failed to comply Court’s decision, cannot be sued. “in other words, the Plaintiff may not enjoy the execution,” he said at MK Hearing room, Wednesday (11/19).

Besides, the Plaintiff explained the Article 231 paragraph (3) KUHP has failed to regulate criminal action of failure in complying Courts’ decision. “For the failure, hampered by DKI Bank, it is condemned that DKI Bank has opposed the Court and tort against the law,” he said.

The Article 231 paragraph (3) KUHP says:

Preserving of seized goods which are deliberately been done or crimes connivance (pulling, conceal, destroy, damage or make unusable goods confiscated), or as an auxiliary aid or act it will not give voluntarily items seized on the orders of the judge, will be punishable by a maximum imprisonment of five years.

In the petitum, the Plaintiff asked MK to say Article 231 paragraph (3) KUHP opposing 1945 Constitution as long as not being interpreted to preserving seized goods are deliberately been done or crimes connivance (pulling, conceal, destroy, damage or make unusable goods confiscated), or as an auxiliary aid or act it will not give voluntarily items seized on the orders of the judge, will be punishable by a maximum imprisonment of five years. (Lulu Hanifah)