Panel hearing for petition revision of judicial review of case on the Juvenile Justice System Law on Tuesday (3/10) in Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ifa.

A number of individual Petitioners who were prosecutors revised the petition for judicial review of sanctions for public prosecutors who commit administrative misconducts in exercising their authority on juvenile cases. The second hearing of review of Article 99 of Law No.11/2012 on Juvenile Justice System (SPPA Law) was held on Tuesday (3/10) at the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court. Noor Rachmad and others, who worked as prosecutors and are listed as PJI members, are Petitioners of case No. 68/PUU-XV/2017.

In the hearing of the petition revision, the Petitioners explained that they had improved the petition in accordance with the advice of the Panel of Justices in the previous hearing. The Petitioners altered the legal standing which was originally in the name of the Indonesian Prosecutors Association to an individual. In addition, Ucok as legal counsel also elaborated the factual case of criminalization of prosecutors in the juvenile justice.

"We have revised the legal standing, which previously was legal entities and individuals, into individuals. Then, we also added some points related to the existing criminalization efforts in the Juvenile Justice System," Ucok explained before the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

The Petitioner argued that his constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Article 99 of the SPPA Law that states, " Public Prosecutor who deliberately neglect his/her obligations as referred to in Article 34 paragraph (3) shall be punished with imprisonment of maximum 2 (two) years ."

According to the Petitioners, Article 99 of the SPPA Law has the potential to convict public prosecutors who conduct maladministration in exercising their authority in a juvenile case. The article is considered intervening the independence of prosecutors, when administrative misconducts of a prosecutor should be accountable to their superiors in the structure and level of supervision been provided by the legislation as stipulated in the Attorney General Law.

In addition, the Petitioners considered that convictions for administrative violations should not be monitored and corrected by the judiciary, in this case is criminal justice. Correctional supervision by a criminal justice for such offense can be regarded as intervention by power. Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court revoke the enforcement of Article 99 of the SPPA Law. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)