Graft suspect of Jemundo Agribusiness Market Procurement (PIA), Sudarto filed judicial review on Article 1 number 10 letter a and Article 270 Act 8/1981 about Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), as the stipulation of both norms deemed violated his Constitutional Rights.  

In the trial chaired by Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar, Thursday (12/18). The Plaintiff through their Attorneys told that Article 270 KUHAP which read “

Dalam sidang perkara nomor perkara 136/PUU-XII/2014 yang dipimpin oleh Hakim Konstitusi Patrialis Akbar, Kamis (18/12), pemohon melalui para kuasa hukumnya mengatakan ada penafsiran yang berbeda terhadap ketentuan pasal 270 KUHAP yang berbunyi  “Execution of court decisions which have acquired the force of law is still being done by the prosecutor, who for the clerks send a copy of the decision letter to him,” the adjudication is interpreted as forcing detention to suspect who hasn’t received Court’s decision.

By the absence of which, the execution has no basis. Furthermore, Article 1 number 10 letter a KUHAP which says “Pretrial district court is authorized to examine and decide in the manner set forth in this law , about : Legal or not an arrest or detention and at the request of the suspect or his family or any other party for the power of the suspect”, the Plaintiff viewed the Article leaves narrow space of the Court’s dignity. In the argument, the Plaintiff asked pretrial attempt in order to protect Constitutional Rights as being upheld in 1945 Constitution.

The Applicant also revealed that ambiguous ruling has adjudicated his superior who was once captivated is freed, and now holds an important post in East Java. Therefore, the Applicant requested so the ruling declared opposing the Constitution.

Constitutional Justice, Muhammad Alim stated that the Applicant must reconstruct their lawsuit, stating MK’s competence to review Act, Applicant’s legal standing, argumentation and request. He also added that it is MK’s rights to measure norms in the Act. “Not adjudicating concrete case, but possible to infiltrate norms reviewing as you discrete.” Said the former Makassar High Court Chief.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams said that the request is contradicting one to another, whether they ask to declare the law contrary to the Constitution or declare specific interpretation to the Articles.

Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar reminded the applicant , if the provisions of Article 1 number 10 letter a of the pre-trial declared contrary to the constitution then there is no legal basis for a defendant to conduct pre-trial process . "If the provisions of Article 1 point 10 letter a dispensed , how is it going in the future ? " Asked the former Minister of Law and Human Rights.

The applicant was given no later than 14 days to correct an entry.(Ilham)