The Applicant’s Attorney Budiyono accompanied by other attorneys delivered petition revision points at judicial review session on the Criminal Code Procedures (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana), on Monday (6/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie 

Central executive board of the Indonesian Prosperous Labor Union (Dewan Pengurus Pusat Serikat Buruh Sejahtera Indonesia –DPP SBSI) revised their judicial review petition on pretrial scope of authority on the Criminal Code Procedures (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana –KUHAP). This revision session on Case No. 35/PUU-XIII/2015 was held on Monday (6/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Henry Lumban Raja as the Applicant’s Attorney was delivered revision points in front of Judge Panel led by Constitutional Judge Suhartoyo.

During the session, Henry was re-affirmed the constitutional loss suffered by the Applicant. As delivered by Henry, the SBSI felt their constitutional loss harmed by the decision of the South Jakarta District Court (Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan –PN Jaksel) related with pretrial lawsuit filed by Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan against the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi –KPK). The decision considered caused legal uncertainty by the Applicant.

It was because the decision considered by the Applicant changed provision on Article 77 the KUHAP. According to the Applicant, the PN Jaksel should not approve the pretrial registration. The Applicant was also deplored the PN Jaksel decision that declared the suspect-naming of Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan was illegitimate based on various reason.

One of the reasons used by the PN Jaksel when granted Budi Gunawan’s petition is suspect-naming process includes as a part of investigations. Whereas, Article 77 the KUHAP stated that District Courts are only authorized to examine and decide whether or not the process of arrest, detention, investigation termination or prosecution termination is valid. In other words, Article 77 the KUHAP is not stipulated that the district courts, in this case the PN Jaksel, are authorized to hear suspect-naming cases.

The Applicant considered that the PN Jaksel indirectly determined the suspect-naming included on pretrial object, and damaged the legal order by its decision. The decision was also considered impaired the Applicant’s constitutional rights because it caused legal uncertainty by releasing suspect status of Comr. Gen. Budi Gunawan. Moreover, the legal uncertainty caused the growth of corruption, collusion, and nepotism that could led to the labor welfare inaccessible.     

Meanwhile the other Applicant’s Attorney Manggatur Nainggolan re-affirmed the Applicant’s petitum. “Receiving and granting entire Judicial Review Petition filed by the Applicant, Declaring Article 77A Act No. 8 Year 1982 of the KUHAP contrary to Article 1 (3) the 1945 Constitution, to the extent it interpreted the district courts are authorized to examine and decide whether or not the suspect-naming is valid, Declaring Article 77A Act No. 8 Year 1982 of the KUHAP illegitimate and not binding to the extent it interpreted the district courts are authorized to examine and decide whether or not the suspect-naming is valid,” said Nainggolan in front of the members of judge panel, Patrialis Akbar and Aswanto.

Budiono as the Applicant’s Attorney added their partners’ explanation and stated that the Applicant was basically requested, there should be no other interpretations towards Article 77 the KUHAP as done by the PN Jaksel by the Comr. Gen Budi Gunawan case decision. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/Prasetyo Adi N.)