Petitioners\' attorney Victor Santoso Tandiasa reading the petition revisions in the second judicial review hearing of Law Number 21 of 2011 on the Financial Services Authority, Monday (7/1) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second session of judicial review hearing of Law Number 21 of 2011 on Financial Services Authority (OJK Law) against the 1945 Constitution on Monday (7/1/2019). The case registered as No. 102/PUU-XVI/2018 was petitioned by lecturers Yovita Arie Mangesti, Hervina Puspitosari, Sura Pria Priambada, and Ashinta Sekar Bidari. The Petitioners feel that their constitutional rights have been harmed or are potentially harmed by the enactment of Article 1 number 1 and Article 9 letter c of the OJK Law, especially along the word "investigation." 

Attorney Victor Santoso Tandiasa revealed two additional Petitioners, financial services company employees Dodi Asnawi and Andi Pauloi. "Currently they are detainees at the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Regional Police," he explained in a hearing led by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat.

In relation to the arguments of the petition, Victor emphasized that the authority of Financial Services Authority (OJK) investigators had obscured the principles of the integrated criminal justice system as well as legal uncertainty. He said there was ambiguity in the scope and types of criminal act that were the authority of OJK or the Police. "This has given rise to dualism, which created legal uncertainty," he said.

On this basis, the Petitioners, in the petition, requested that the Court grant the entire petition and declare Article 1 number 1 along the word "investigation" and Article 9 letter c along the word "investigation" contrary to the Constitution.

The Petitioners argued that their constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Article 49 paragraph (3) of the OJK Law. They claimed that in carrying out their authority, civil service investigators (PPNS) had the authority in accordance with the law, which was their respective legal basis, and the implementation of their duties was under the coordination and supervision of police investigators. This is stipulated in Article 7 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). However, according to the Petitioners, in relation to the investigative authority granted by the OJK Law to the OJK PPNS, there is no provision that explicitly states, "The authority of investigation as referred to in paragraph (2) is carried out in accordance with the provisions of criminal procedural law," or at least, "Civil service investigators coordinate with the Indonesian National Police Investigators." The Petitioners questioned that the investigative authority held by OJK Article 49 paragraph (3) of the OJK Law was not linked to the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP). It states that the OJK PPNS are authorized to carry out investigations without coordinating or asking for help from other law enforcers, namely police investigators.

The Petitioners stressed that, observing the authority of the OJK investigators as stipulated in Article 49 paragraph (3) of the OJK Law, some norms violate the principle of due process of law and can lead to arbitrariness by OJK investigators. They argued that Article 1 number 1 and Article 9 letter c of the OJK Law, especially the word "investigation," which grants investigative authority, is contrary to the principle of due process of law in the criminal justice system, and does not provide fair legal certainty for someone suspected of committing a crime in the financial services sector. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)